Jump to content

Dave T

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by Dave T

  1. 1 minute ago, Dunbar said:

    Why is it 'blindly' defending the game.

    You think because people have a different view that they haven't thought it through?

    The claim is that the RFL were neglectful from people in the game. No evidence has been presented by anyone here about why the governing body and clubs haven't been neglectful. That's why it's blind. 

  2. 15 hours ago, Derwent Parker said:

    no its awful

    I do tend to agree. It's the part of this whole setup that doesn't really work for me. And for all people will talk about the aim being 12+ A clubs, in reality we won't be there for a long while, so designing a system that has some real challenges in it around P&R seems a bit odd. 

    Some of the examples being raised may be to make a point, but it shouldn't be so easy to put examples of poor outcomes together in a newly designed system. You have a blank canvas, you can fix those quirks. 

    Of course maybe the challenge is that P&R just doesn't have a place. But like 15 years ago, we are going with a middle ground to try and please everyone. 

    • Like 1
  3. It is interesting to see people blindly defend the game here, when those same people constantly pull the governing body and clubs apart for doing things poorly and doing things on the cheap. 

    This is my worry. I can absolutely believe that clubs and governing bodies havent taken this as seriously as they should have because of costs. 

  4. In any industry, if I got an illness that could be directly attributed back to my job and in particular due to neglect by my employer wouldn't there be some liability there? Isn't it just as simple as that? 

    If there is neglect then the RFL/Clubs should be liable. And nobody should be defending them. 

    If not, the players should lose their case. 

    • Like 2
  5. 2 hours ago, redjonn said:

    well yes but anyone can agree with a system that demands certain standards as per say IMG.  They can have disagreement over how precisely its implemented. for example, of how say a 0.1 extra point score in the IMG grading could decide a club finishing top of championship not being promoted over that bottom club.... or even the bottom SL club not being demoted but the 2nd bottom because the championship club and bottom club have a 0.1 extra grading point.

    Surely it is valid to agree with the general grading structure but not with how small differences within a grade B club can determine the outcome.   A tweak of say a club has to be well above in the grading score to overcome being relegated for example or just all cat B are treated same when relation and promotion is consider.

    You can agree the principle and disagree about some precise aspects, surely.

    I'm not sure how this relates to the posts quoted. The clubs are voting on the principle in reality tweaks have already been made, and will always continue I expect. 

    But the point of my post was that nobody has a moral high ground either way, which is what was claimed. 

  6. 3 hours ago, gittinsfan said:

    I'm yet to be convinced this won't lead to a closed shop SL.Some on here seem to think this will be a good thing for the game but I am not one.

    And thats fine. But I don't think either opinion comes with any moral high ground. 

    • Like 1
  7. Just now, gittinsfan said:

    Purely self interest like every other club.The expected grade A clubs are'nt voting for the good of the game.

    on the flipside, surely anyone who doesn't vote for a system that demands standards from all clubs to allow the sport to put its best foot forwards isn't voting for the good of the game?

    These strong A clubs are all pretty much safe and can crack on with life anyway, many of the biggest improvements need to come lower down the table.

    • Like 3
  8. Just now, Damien said:

    They are not irrelevant. The amateur game has protocols and has clubs, unpaid coaches and volunteers that have to follow these protocols. This is set all set by the RFL. As Fozzard is arguing that the RFL knew of the risks and covered them up then this argument also applies to anyone that has played the game. Players at amateur clubs were similarly treated with the magic sponge and pressured to play. I see no difference.

    That's a fair point if that's the case. If there is evidence of a cover up, I'd be surprised if anyone stuck up for the RFL.

    Of course that is a big if. 

  9. Just now, Dunbar said:

    Yes, that is reasonable.

    From my perspective (as I have said, not necessarily a legal point but my pwrsonal view), the key factor is whether risks were known and not enough action was taken to mitigate those risks.

    In my era of playing (mid 80's to mid 90's) I do not believe enough was known.  In the least 2 decades then this may be different. 

    I think to build on your point, we would have a reasonable defence if we had enough reasonable mitigants in place for what was known at the time. So in the 90s we knew less than now, but if that is because we buried our head in the sand, that's in issue. I expect as long as we were using a sensible level of medical guidance, it feels like that gives us a defendable position. 

    Haven't there been some instances of clubs not following HIA protocol even in recent years? If that kind of thing was widespread in previous years then there could be a problem. 

  10. 1 minute ago, Dunbar said:

    I guess this is where I am coming from.  Although let me stress that I have huge sympathy for the players whose quality of life is deteriorating.

    I didn't get paid to play Rugby League.  But I did play 10 seasons at junior, open age and University level in the 80's and 90's.  And I remember plenty of times feeling sick after a head knock - and I am sure there were plenty of times when I don't even remember the head knock at all.

    And I have to admit that I do worry about the effects that it has had on me.  Not least because my mother is now in full time care suffering from Alzheimer's and Dementia and doesn't recognise any of her children when we go to see her, or in fact have any understanding of her life or existence.  I fear that is my future.

    But here is the thing.  I was a bright but reckless lad in my 20's and I thought I was unbreakable.  I thoroughly enjoyed playing Rugby and I don't for a second believe that there was anyone in the sport of Rugby League who knew the long term effects of the repetitive head contact and suppressed it.

    There may be an argument that in the last 20 years the sport hasn't progressed as much as it should have in player protection but in my case the choices and any consequences are entirely mine.

    All that is fair enough, I do think it is very different to it being your job and your employer having a duty of care. 

    • Like 1
  11. Just now, Damien said:

    I know, I never said otherwise and have already said the same.

    So those who played for free are irrelevant, as they won't have been in those situations. We are talking about the professional sport. A lad who plays RL on a field on a Sunday morning won't have a clue about whether Fozard was given suitable medical support and advice by Warrington/Saints/Leeds etc. 

    It'll be what it'll be. 

    • Like 1
  12. 6 minutes ago, Damien said:

    Maybe many of the RL family, who largely played the games for nothing and who were just as aware of the risks as Fozzard, simply don't agree. Anyone that has played the game at any level could do as Fozzard is doing and it is their right to have a different opinion.

    I would be stunned if he is claiming that RL is dangerous. I expect that wouldn't get off the ground and we wouldn't even have sports like boxing etc. 

    This will be all about whether the governing body and employers were negligent.

    For example, did they cultivate a culture which downplayed the seriousness of foul play by watering down punishments because some journos moaned?

    Or did clubs encourage players to play when hurt? 


  13. Just now, The Blues Ox said:

    Yeah from Fozzard's tweets it looks like the claim is based around the RFL either knowing more than they let on to the players or some sort of neglect. Either way its great to see the "Rugby League Family" rallying round these players with potential brain injuries rather than just wishing they slowly disappear in to a hole........

    I think people need to have calm heads with sensible discussions here, and obviously social media isn't the place for that. 

    I'm not sure a current club owner attacking somebody is the way to go here. 

    • Like 1
  14. 27 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

    I don't think any of us can really comment with authority on the legal claim - unless you are in the legal profession. 

    My point is more of the moral (if that is the right word).  To glorify how you acted outside the laws of game and deliberately inflicted harm on a fellow player while simultaneously making a claim that the game caused you harm is just off.

    I suppose it depends what the claim is. Fozzard is clearly a bit, well, dim in many of his posts, but it wouldn't negate any neglect. 

    I expect the claim isn't that RL is dangerous, I expect there has to be a claim of neglect. 

    Where Fozzard maybe leaves himself open is to a claim from Sinfield against him. But in reality, maybe that tweet is a perfect example of why the governing body needed to be tough, because the people playing are not going to look after themselves. 

  15. I am OK with past players doing what they need to do on stuff like this. I don't think macho after-dinner style speeches are going to harm him really, as I don't think any case would be on the grounds that the RFL allowed the foul play - they didn't, it was always illegal. Fozzard claiming that shoulders to the head were perfectly legal is simply wrong. 

    But, that does bring us onto whether the RFL and the clubs acted with player welfare in mind. If they can justify that they had suitable medical advice, protocols, punishments to act as deterrents, and that these were always followed, then I expect they will be OK. 

    If I was a player though, I'd probably be using the downgrading of punishments in 2023 because some loudmouths didn't like bans as an example of the sport putting other interests ahead of player welfare. 

    I hope any case is unsuccessful, not because I want the players to fail, but because it would mean that the game has acted correctly over the years. 

    • Like 1
  16. 9 minutes ago, Phil said:

    Good points 

    I don't have an issue with the principle of speeding things up. It did get a bit silly when we had the same ref looking at the same angle maybe a dozen times. But if there is an instruction to watch things just once or twice to speed it up, it is pretty much a given that we will see more mistakes. That may be a conscious decision to keep the tempo up, as being honest, we don't get 100% accuracy anyway. 

    My biggest challenge is that the VR providing audio has been an excellent development, and it's become a little redundant now as they seem to be trying to keep their thoughts secret for the big screen reveal. 

  17. 1 minute ago, Phil said:

    We’ll have to disagree then 🤔

    You can't disagree with the facts about the NRL bunker Phil. 

    They don't have to deal with a match director who often doesn't understand what the ref is asking for, watching it on a black and white portable with access to 3 camera angles from mobile phones 🤣

    The technology in the NRL bunker is different league to ours. And they've changed the process to give VR's even more time to review. 

    • Like 1
  18. 13 hours ago, Dunbar said:

    If you think foul play should be punished more based on the injury caused then fair enough. 

    My view is that with tackles like that, injury incurred (or not) is really down to chance and so all such tackles should be heavily punished.


    5 minutes ago, Phil said:

    Yes, absolutely 

    I think this is a real challenge, and tbh my instinct is to agree with Phil. However I think that brings it's problems. What if we don't have scans back before sentencing? What if diagnosis is not accurate? 

    That brings us back to Dunbar's approach that we should be harsh on these tackles, and tbh, we have watered down the punishments, so this is the outcome we are getting. We seem to deem these tackles serious enough for 1 or 2 matches. 

  • Create New...