Posts posted by Dave T
5 hours ago, DI Keith Fowler said:
I mean what does contact session even mean? Does it include wrestling which the players do a lot of? The chances of getting a brain injury from that seems negligible.
I think wrestling would absolutely be classed as contact training. I expect if you are ruled out with concussion you are not wrestling in training.
28 minutes ago, whatmichaelsays said:
The NFL change has mostly just meant that 90+% of kick-offs end up with a touchback.
It wouldn't surprise me if shorter kick-offs become more common (maybe Leeds knew something the rest didn't )
Yes, landing a short kickoff between the 20 and 30m lines seems far more attractive than 10m further up.
1 hour ago, Damien said:
I agree with the armpit tackle height below armpit and its something I've advocated before. There is no reason for a tackle to be higher than that and it improves the margin for error before contact with the head.
I'm not a fan of the kick off idea. It seems to be following the NFL where they made changes a few years ago to reduce return impact from kick off.
The 2nd one will be interesting to see. This could have a big impact on the field position following a kick off. We could see the receiving team trapped in their 10m far more on tackle one.
Interested to see the outcomes here.
17 minutes ago, Jughead said:
Salford messed up the ballot and wanted to vote yes.
This is my favourite part of this whole episode.
9 minutes ago, Jughead said:
No one. Salford abstained (they wanted to vote yes according to John Davidson) and Catalans aren’t allowed a vote.
Ah yes, misread, sorry!
3 minutes ago, Jughead said:
Barrow, Batley, Featherstone and Keighley were against in the Champ. Whitehaven abstained. Hunslet, Dewsbury and Skolars against in L1 and West Wales abstaining.
No real surprises barring Skolars, for me.
Do you know who voted against in SL? Was it Cas?
5 minutes ago, The Daddy said:
They abstained probably on the basis they are not operational
Yep, if WWR abstained, it seems like the entirely right thing to do.
Always enjoy the spin on stuff like this. Mick Gledhill stating that 'only' eight of the 13 Champ clubs voted in favour. That's a pretty strong endorsement tbh, and twice as many Champ clubs voted in favour as voted against.
1 minute ago, Tommygilf said:
Anyway at least we know now that Keighley's campaign was working and the silent majority turned out...
A majority across all three divisions is pretty conclusive aint it?
What's absention? Is it just a typo (over and over)?
40 minutes ago, The Masked Poster said:
Surely though, the RFL could simply point out that they did take precautions over the players well being but the referees didn't enforce it. This relates to a company having a very safe work environment and individuals not following their SOPs. I've seen it happen numerous times and the people have been sacked without a leg to stand on.
There will be dozens of examples where say, NF was involved in head shots but not sent off. They could maybe use these as examples of the refs not being strict enough. (I'm not criticising the refs, purely using it as a theoretical argument)
I'd be surprised if the RFL's defence is to throw refs under the bus.
It also wouldn't be a good defence as you would have to show you took action against these dysfunctional refs.
1 hour ago, The Masked Poster said:
Yes but we've had laws against head shots for some time.
In the workplace, under H&S legislation, we are legally responsible for the health of others as well as ourselves. Thus if I commit a dangerous act that results in injury or even death to another person, I would be in the dock, not the company.
With this in mind, this would surely leave the referees open to accusations of neglect too? They were after all, the ones who didn't implement the laws of the game in a strict enough manner. And this is whether or not fans or coaches complained, that was their role.
Where does this end?
We don't need to keep using these kind of examples. Dangerous activity is allowed. I keep mentioning boxing and MMA but they are good examples - sports where the aim is to try and knock the person unconscious (maybe not the stated aim admittedly!).
The issue here is around whether the governing body and employers had adequate processes and procedures in place and that they were followed. Having laws against head shots which involve them being illegal on the field of play and leading to individual punishments is an example of a process/policy that the game has in place in this area.
But on referees, I would expect that the RFL would point to the rulebook, the coaching provided to refs, and the action taken against refs who are not up to scratch.
I expect in most areas the RFL would absolutely be able to dig out a policy and process to cover themselves.
3 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:
What other actions taken "in the last 2 years" do you mean then?
Union have gone in a very different direction to Rugby League on the tackle. It's certainly not a direction I'd like us to go in, but I assume we all have the same data, but we have very different approaches.
Does anyone know when the RFL first introduced stricter rules around concussion etc? Are there any articles about our approach.
As an outsider it looks like we have high profile formal rules in place, further strengthened this year with things like 18th man, but what did it look like in 2005 for example?
4 hours ago, Damien said:
What I don't think is that they were hiding all this evidence, as Fozzard is making out, and that they knew no more than players and fans. You know because they are incompetent and I don't believe they did all these studies in the 90s and 00s and hid the results.
I agree with this. But it is important to look past Fozzard's 'provocative' language (I'll use that to be nice to him). I don't believe that the RFL will have hidden findings etc - but would you be surprised if they were slow to act and implement things?
Now to be fair, I'm not one that thinks everything the RFL does is rubbish, so I do hope that actually they did take this seriously, can clearly document and evidence that, and demonstrate that there was no clear neglect.
The RFL are a bit of a weird one - in some areas they can be industry-leading - in others, they are pretty passive.
4 hours ago, Tommygilf said:
I think you're conflating your dislike for the new MRP charging grades with this to suit your point of view there.
I'm not referring to the MRP grades in the slightest here.
Just now, Damien said:
No one has said we have done everything by the book. It's a debate based on what we know and people have differing opinions. As much as you are making assumptions others are too
I'm not making a single assumption. I have no idea whether any case of neglect would be successful. I hope not.
2 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:
That is not what is happening at all.
My honest belief is that if the RFL knew something about concussion, everyone would have known it. If nobody in RL knew it, then the RFL didn't either.
I don't buy the conspiracy point tbh, I'd be surprised if that formed any kind of legal case. But we can see here that Rugby Union and Rugby League have taken very different approaches even in the last 2 years here. So decisions are being taken by the RFL and they will be judged on those.
2 minutes ago, Dunbar said:
I don't think anyone has argued this at all on this thread or any other thread on the topic.
So I would expect more support for players who have suffered neglect then tbh.
Just now, Dunbar said:
I have said several times on this thread that I don't have the knowledge or experience to provide insight into the legal merits of this case.
In essence, until the case for the players is presented and any defence from 'the sport' is presented back then we are all in the dark.
I just fiund it interesting that you only describe one side of this as blindly defending their viewpoint though. It was just felt dismissive.
I don't think there are sides here - surely we all want this to go the RFL's way (and the players get any help they need)?
But if anyone has formed the opinion that players don't have a valid claim is absolutely displaying blind faith (and I would argue misplaced blind faith!). And that is because, as you have said on here, we don't know the claims being made. All we know is they are claims of neglect.
27 minutes ago, The Masked Poster said:
I certainly aren't "blindly defending the game" and I don't think anyone else is either. In fact, if anything it's vindication of past criticism about doing things half heartedly and on the cheap. But until relatively recently the solution to a player lying spark out was a rub with the sponge. This has changed as medical advice has become more stringent. Let's be honest, we all used to admire a player who got knocked out and then ran back straight onto the pitch. Aren't we all slightly culpable then? We knew they were being reckless, even at the time.
But I digress. It matters not who wins here, the fact is that RL hasn't got a pot to pee in. Sure, it could pay out something and maybe some players could win relatively decent payouts.
But do you think a game that can only give peanuts to League 1 clubs and had to cull development officers left right and centre, can do that and still continue as usual? I don't.
As far as I am aware - nobody is arguing about the safety of the actual game of RL - in the same way that boxing and MMA are perfectly legal sports around the world.
We are talking about the care for players around that from the governing body and their employers.
On your bottom point, of course, that is the risk here, and is why we should all hope that the RFL have acted well at all times and win any case brought.
23 minutes ago, Damien said:
That's strawman stuff Dave and you should give people more credit than that.
It's a perfectly valid and relevant point. People are arguing that a governing body will have been spot on in this area, but spend all day telling us that the RFL are incompetent. Why the faith that the RFL were spot on here?
22 minutes ago, Damien said:
What do mean by evidence? I've certainly seen it discussed repeatedly on this thread that the RFL have long implemented concussion protocols following medical advice at that time. That is far from the governing body being neglectful.
So that is a defence being presented, but it doesn't address whether it was implemented at the right time, was followed robustly, was open to abuse etc. And what about Fozard's claim in the Mail article (spit) that he suffered a horrible facial injury and didn't get the treatment he needed, including a lack of scans etc?
In reality, not a single person here know whether the RFL/Clubs were neglectful, but there seems to be a fair amount of faith that we will have done absolutely everything we should have by the book. I'm not so confident. I hope I'm wrong on this.
8 minutes ago, Dunbar said:
I always thought that it was the responsibility of those making a claim to prove it.
Of course and there is plenty of conjecture. But players are telling us that clubs and the governing body neglected their duty of care.
But you post is sort of my point. People are dismissing Fozzard when they don't know his claims. That's blind faith in an organisation that they usually spend all day berating for poor behaviours, corruption, incompetence etc.
I think for me it all comes down to one question. "Where the RFL/Clubs neglectful?".
The details will be presented in due course, but I'm not sure how anyone could have a level of confidence in the game acting correctly over the last 20 to 30 years or so. I hope they have and they win the case (and the players get what they need), but it's a worry.
RFL trialling new laws to reduce head contact
in The General Rugby League Forum
Yeah, it may turn out to be an interesting change from a variety point of view.