Man of Kent Posted December 22, 2020 Share Posted December 22, 2020 ‘Rylands Law, the firm representing as many as 130 rugby union players, has also been approached by players from football and rugby league. The Times understands that the firm is at an advanced stage in preparing a claim for the rugby league players, with ten individuals undergoing medical testing before a joint action in the new year. ‘While the firm is not yet prepared to release names, some are said to be in a desperate situation as a result of brain injuries they believe have been caused by suffering concussions and sub-concussions while playing sport. Among them are stories of homelessness and suicidal thoughts.’ https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/ten-rugby-league-players-ready-to-sue-over-dementia-gs07fmthv More bad news Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taniwha Warriors Posted December 22, 2020 Share Posted December 22, 2020 Its sad that we have to come to this. But I read somewhere that they are calling for a total ban on tackling at junior and school levels. If thats the case then there are other sports (boxing, UFC, Kickboxing etc) that's more brutal that should be ban first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HarrogateKnights Posted December 22, 2020 Share Posted December 22, 2020 5 hours ago, Taniwha Warriors said: Its sad that we have to come to this. But I read somewhere that they are calling for a total ban on tackling at junior and school levels. If thats the case then there are other sports (boxing, UFC, Kickboxing etc) that's more brutal that should be ban first. Totally agreed with that, the major problem is if it you class juniors as U16s you wouldn't be coaching the correct tacking technique in game play until a player is 16 years old. Personally more research needs to be done before they can prove the player isn't at fault due to reckless tackles and putting themselves in danger which happens far too often. For the 10s of 1000s of players that have played both codes why do only a small number develop a later condition that is what the research should be concentrating on. I understand certain positions have less risk associated with them. It could be a genetic condition similar to heart problems that can be detected before it causes long term effects and Dr's step in etc. I personally feel in the pro/am game we lead the way in other sports when it comes to Concussion and head injuries in general, there isn't a stigma attached anymore of "it's just a head knock, get on with it etc" moving forwards we are in a better position although correct tackling techniques still should be taught as without the basics you are going to be in and out like a tumble dryer spin! Our coaching sessions in Harrogate are being prepared with your opponent and yours safety constantly in mind. At the junior level and especially amateur level, I would prefer a player not to risk getting a boot or knee in the head in a tackle attempt and rather letting a try in than teaching them to stop the try at all costs. Everyone in the junior and amateur game has a responsibility for each others welfare but just because we idolise a certain player doesn't mean we have to copy him/her each week. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
graveyard johnny Posted December 22, 2020 Share Posted December 22, 2020 where will it end? will people be urged to sue former teachers for the "crack round the head" they got at school for been unruly? playing contact sports is a choice and may come with some risk but its always been the same, no one forces people to play contact sport. see you later undertaker - in a while necrophile Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gingerjon Posted December 22, 2020 Share Posted December 22, 2020 3 minutes ago, graveyard johnny said: will people be urged to sue former teachers for the "crack round the head" Let's hope so - as long as the abusive soaks aren't dead yet. Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. (Terry Pratchett) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnM Posted December 22, 2020 Share Posted December 22, 2020 1 hour ago, graveyard johnny said: where will it end? will people be urged to sue former teachers for the "crack round the head" they got at school for been unruly? playing contact sports is a choice and may come with some risk but its always been the same, no one forces people to play contact sport. However, the risks have really only started to become evident in recent times. Thus is it is perfectly possible for players to embark on a career in the game without knowing all the risks. That's why proper research is so necessary. And quickly, too. For example, it was only in 2012 that the risk of catching hepatitis B was highlighted. Clubs warned of hepatitis threat | Rugby League News | Sky Sports Nobby Stiles: Dementia in football: Nobby Stiles' brain damage caused by heading the ball, his family is told | Football News | Sky Sports Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RP London Posted December 22, 2020 Share Posted December 22, 2020 1 hour ago, graveyard johnny said: where will it end? will people be urged to sue former teachers for the "crack round the head" they got at school for been unruly? playing contact sports is a choice and may come with some risk but its always been the same, no one forces people to play contact sport. One too many cracks or one too few? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gingerjon Posted December 22, 2020 Share Posted December 22, 2020 20 minutes ago, JohnM said: However, the risks have really only started to become evident in recent times. Thus is it is perfectly possible for players to embark on a career in the game without knowing all the risks. That's why proper research is so necessary. And quickly, too. For example, it was only in 2012 that the risk of catching hepatitis B was highlighted. Clubs warned of hepatitis threat | Rugby League News | Sky Sports Nobby Stiles: Dementia in football: Nobby Stiles' brain damage caused by heading the ball, his family is told | Football News | Sky Sports There is also something of a clear split between professionals who will be basing their 'informed' choices on what clubs and club doctors are advising them they can do and/or what clubs and club doctors are expecting them to do in order to continue to be paid - and amateurs who have the comparative luxury of avoiding any and all risks. I don't expect the cases to win but that doesn't mean professional sport is in the right. It wasn't too long ago, on here, that examples of players retiring with lifelong physical problems caused by overuse of painkilling injections (that they were told were fine) led to fundraising for RL Cares and the like. Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. (Terry Pratchett) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iffleyox Posted December 22, 2020 Share Posted December 22, 2020 2 hours ago, HarrogateKnights said: Personally more research needs to be done before they can prove the player isn't at fault due to reckless tackles and putting themselves in danger which happens far too often. For the 10s of 1000s of players that have played both codes why do only a small number develop a later condition that is what the research should be concentrating on. As I said on another thread on this subject, what worries me is that this is dangerously close to the tobacco company defence in the 1950s and 60s - 'we think there might be a link, it only affects a few people, let's do some research' when you turn round 20 years later and say 'er, right, this is the link and our research says this is what's it's doing/done' then you've affected 20 years more players. It's a massive ethical question. To be clear, I don't know what the answer is, but I do think 'there's a problem, let's do loads more research' is problematic *if* it turns out that it's a bigger problem than it looks like. I.e. the numbers getting dementia might be small, but what if it turns out you can add in MND, or (maybe more) a high incidence of low level cognitive impairment? It's got the potential to be at best a licence to print money for lawyers, and at worst a total nightmare for the governing bodies and the clubs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Stottle Posted December 22, 2020 Share Posted December 22, 2020 What is the solution to this? If lawsuits become the norm with ex-players winning vast amounts of money then the sport (whichever sport) may as well take stock and decide if it is worth carrying on, and who will be liable the games governing body or the club(s) said individual(s) played for, where does the blame stop. I said it in a previous discussion on this subject that any player amatuer or professional should be contracted in that all the known risks that could result by taking part in this sport are clearly laid out and it is up to the individual if they want to proceed in playing for pleasure or in the case of a professional being paid or making a living by taking part, basically passing the onus onto the individual. Many people do exactly this everyday who sign the paper when having a medical proceedure performed in that the risks are presented to them and it is up to them if they wish to proceed or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Northern Eel Posted December 22, 2020 Share Posted December 22, 2020 1 minute ago, Harry Stottle said: What is the solution to this? If lawsuits become the norm with ex-players winning vast amounts of money then the sport (whichever sport) may as well take stock and decide if it is worth carrying on, and who will be liable the games governing body or the club(s) said individual(s) played for, where does the blame stop. I said it in a previous discussion on this subject that any player amatuer or professional should be contracted in that all the known risks that could result by taking part in this sport are clearly laid out and it is up to the individual if they want to proceed in playing for pleasure or in the case of a professional being paid or making a living by taking part, basically passing the onus onto the individual. Many people do exactly this everyday who sign the paper when having a medical proceedure performed in that the risks are presented to them and it is up to them if they wish to proceed or not. Having not read your previous comment, I don't know whether you had a response similar to mine. Does the law sufficiently allow for the sport to indemnify itself in that way or are there still loop-holes that would allow players to claim, for example, negligence against the RFL? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RP London Posted December 22, 2020 Share Posted December 22, 2020 5 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said: What is the solution to this? If lawsuits become the norm with ex-players winning vast amounts of money then the sport (whichever sport) may as well take stock and decide if it is worth carrying on, and who will be liable the games governing body or the club(s) said individual(s) played for, where does the blame stop. I said it in a previous discussion on this subject that any player amatuer or professional should be contracted in that all the known risks that could result by taking part in this sport are clearly laid out and it is up to the individual if they want to proceed in playing for pleasure or in the case of a professional being paid or making a living by taking part, basically passing the onus onto the individual. Many people do exactly this everyday who sign the paper when having a medical proceedure performed in that the risks are presented to them and it is up to them if they wish to proceed or not. The thing is its not all about the known issues.. what about the unknown, and what if the agreement isnt strong enough. When you sign a waiver to go on rides and bungee jumps etc that does not mean you cannot sue.. they still have a responsibility to keep you safe and if you get hurt they have to prove they followed all the rules laid out by HSE and their governing body (depending what it is you are doing) it is just an acknowledgement that things happen when all precautions are taken, if they were not the waiver is null and void and you can sue. Its going to be hard to prove but its a warning shot to all that they have to take these things seriously and at the time that many of these players were playing I am not sure they were taking things seriously enough. We now have the HIA and concussion substitutes and full return to play procedures but years ago someone would be unable to walk one week and back playing the next, and that is without taking into account the mini concussions. This is a step forward and it is that sort of thing that will be the defence going forward. These cases will be about what the knowledge was at the time around the risks and what preventative measures were put in place, if those 2 things dont marry up there could be issues. its not about liability as such in terms of "i knew the risks". The interview with Alix Pophams wife on BBC was interesting when she said (paraphrased and from memory) "that he knew the physical risks but no one really knew that there were mental risks" and I think that is probably true... they will need to prove that the RFU did know and they did not do enough about it.. the RFL case and any case going forward will probably be the same. IF they are looking at all the available information and acting upon it then they should be ok, if they are not then they will be rightly in some hot water. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DoubleD Posted December 22, 2020 Share Posted December 22, 2020 Unrelated to the case but an article about Craig Huby on the topic https://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/sport/rugby-league/former-castleford-tigers-and-wakefield-trinity-forward-craig-huby-left-tackle-growing-fears-dementia-3074411?amp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Copa Posted December 22, 2020 Share Posted December 22, 2020 In Australia, the most common cause of death from a “football” (soccer, rugby union, rugby league and Australian Rules) injury over 146 years is brain damage. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-12-22/football-deaths-in-australia-over-the-past-146-years/13004516 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gingerjon Posted December 22, 2020 Share Posted December 22, 2020 25 minutes ago, RP London said: The thing is its not all about the known issues.. what about the unknown, and what if the agreement isnt strong enough. When you sign a waiver to go on rides and bungee jumps etc that does not mean you cannot sue.. they still have a responsibility to keep you safe and if you get hurt they have to prove they followed all the rules laid out by HSE and their governing body (depending what it is you are doing) it is just an acknowledgement that things happen when all precautions are taken, if they were not the waiver is null and void and you can sue. Its going to be hard to prove but its a warning shot to all that they have to take these things seriously and at the time that many of these players were playing I am not sure they were taking things seriously enough. We now have the HIA and concussion substitutes and full return to play procedures but years ago someone would be unable to walk one week and back playing the next, and that is without taking into account the mini concussions. This is a step forward and it is that sort of thing that will be the defence going forward. These cases will be about what the knowledge was at the time around the risks and what preventative measures were put in place, if those 2 things dont marry up there could be issues. its not about liability as such in terms of "i knew the risks". The interview with Alix Pophams wife on BBC was interesting when she said (paraphrased and from memory) "that he knew the physical risks but no one really knew that there were mental risks" and I think that is probably true... they will need to prove that the RFU did know and they did not do enough about it.. the RFL case and any case going forward will probably be the same. IF they are looking at all the available information and acting upon it then they should be ok, if they are not then they will be rightly in some hot water. Even things as basic as, "Were players who had been assessed for concussion told what symptoms they should like out for in the days after their assessment and what to do if they became aware of them?" Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. (Terry Pratchett) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eddie Posted December 22, 2020 Share Posted December 22, 2020 1 hour ago, JohnM said: However, the risks have really only started to become evident in recent times. Thus is it is perfectly possible for players to embark on a career in the game without knowing all the risks. That's why proper research is so necessary. And quickly, too. For example, it was only in 2012 that the risk of catching hepatitis B was highlighted. Clubs warned of hepatitis threat | Rugby League News | Sky Sports Nobby Stiles: Dementia in football: Nobby Stiles' brain damage caused by heading the ball, his family is told | Football News | Sky Sports Did people really not know there was a link between repeated concussions and brain damage? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tonka Posted December 22, 2020 Share Posted December 22, 2020 45 minutes ago, Northern Eel said: Having not read your previous comment, I don't know whether you had a response similar to mine. Does the law sufficiently allow for the sport to indemnify itself in that way or are there still loop-holes that would allow players to claim, for example, negligence against the RFL? In England and Wales, you can’t contract out of liability for personal injury (Section 2(1) Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977). “A person cannot by reference to any contract term or to a notice given to persons generally or to particular persons exclude or restrict his liability for death or personal injury resulting from negligence.” What you are really talking about is a waiver, not an indemnity. Many of the waivers people sign when doing dangerous activities are invalid: the person running the event has a duty of care that over-rides anything you agree. There is an interesting question about whether a player could sue their club(s) or the governing body, or both. The critical thing will be to show that those bodies fell below the standard that could reasonably be expected of them. There are multiple ways that could be argued: medical care, rules, match frequency, all sorts. I have no idea whether existing RFL or club insurance might cover these sorts of claims, however, if the cases are successful I very much doubt insurers will cover them in future unless the sport radically changes. Certainly if the clubs and RFL aren’t insurance-backed then they could very quickly run out of money. I’d expect the claims to be significant ie (at its high point) loss of earnings plus health care over the remainder of a lifetime due to incapacity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RP London Posted December 22, 2020 Share Posted December 22, 2020 28 minutes ago, gingerjon said: Even things as basic as, "Were players who had been assessed for concussion told what symptoms they should like out for in the days after their assessment and what to do if they became aware of them?" exactly. You only need to look at Stevie Ward. Only a few years ago he would still be playing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RP London Posted December 22, 2020 Share Posted December 22, 2020 25 minutes ago, Eddie said: Did people really not know there was a link between repeated concussions and brain damage? concussion yes... but did they understand this issue around the Mini Concussion and the issues of impact and "wiplash".. i would say they probably didnt.. I know when i was playing late 90s and 00s that concussion was just being knocked out, it started to change to "being groggy" but the research in the states around the mini concussions and CET are relatively recent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Exiled Wiganer Posted December 22, 2020 Share Posted December 22, 2020 It was only a few weeks ago that Graham and LMS got what looked like bad bangs on the head and turned out the following week (indeed LMS returned to the pitch). Even if there is a cut off point in the past before which no one could be reasonably expected to have known of the risks, we have to deal with this properly from now on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gingerjon Posted December 22, 2020 Share Posted December 22, 2020 Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. (Terry Pratchett) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnM Posted December 22, 2020 Share Posted December 22, 2020 1 hour ago, Eddie said: Did people really not know there was a link between repeated concussions and brain damage? I think it more complex than that. Punch drunk, then yes, but low level, high frequency, increasing life expectancy etc etc. New diagnostic techniques etc etc etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
old un Posted December 22, 2020 Share Posted December 22, 2020 I feel that a proven head protection should be compulsory for each player as a starter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Click Posted December 22, 2020 Share Posted December 22, 2020 28 minutes ago, old un said: I feel that a proven head protection should be compulsory for each player as a starter. Pretty sure the helmets in NFL make their concussions worse rather than better. You can secure the head as much as you want but the brain is still loose in there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RP London Posted December 22, 2020 Share Posted December 22, 2020 30 minutes ago, old un said: I feel that a proven head protection should be compulsory for each player as a starter. They dont exist though as it isnt about the bang to the head causing the issue its about what is happening inside the skull that is causing the major issues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.