Concussion (Merged Threads)

[MZH]

4 hours ago, Dallas Mead said:

Yep, there won’t be anyone playing is kind of the point I’m making.

I remember when all of the concussion stuff started to really come out in American football, there were a number of players who basically said look, I'd be a total nobody without the NFL. It's given me everything I could have ever dreamed of when the alternative was a dead end job or being in a gang or whatever. So if I end up with problems in later life then so be it.

The difference is, if you are a decent American football player it will make you a multi millionaire, and I'm sure there will still be lots of people willing to take the risk. Who's going to risk their health for a salary barely above the national average?

I agree with you it's a real concern for the future of the sport.

[Griff]

27 minutes ago, Damien said:

Furlough.

Are you assuming that players would get the same money for playing, say, half as many games ?  I think not.

Furlough just doesn't explain it.

[unapologetic pedant]

There`s a consensus we should do everything practicable to eliminate direct contact with the head. However, to address the strictures in the OP about legal heavy contact (big hits, massive collisions, head jolting back), we have to look at the way the game is played. Specifically, how today`s game contrasts with previous eras when these sort of mental health conditions seem to have been less common among former players.

Teams are frightened of turning the ball over in their own half. Thus they concentrate on bash and crash close to the ruck to gain territory and "get to the kick". Which means far more irresistible force meets immovable object impacts than in the past. Again and again, just to pick up a few metres.

I might be alone in continually claiming this, but I believe the style of refereeing through the past 20 years has played a part in compressing the game. Teams don`t just have to worry they may turn the ball over from an actual error, but also through calls of phantom knock-ons, phantom forward passes, phantom obstructions. Basically, bash and crash is the only certain way to keep the officials out of the game when you`re in possession.

There`s an obvious limit to how far risk can be reduced. Loosening the play up wouldn`t be the whole answer, but trying to discern links between styles of play and applications of rules is one thing we can do without altering the fundamental nature of RL.

[Archie Gordon]

15 minutes ago, Saint 1 said:

Nobody is being forced to take risks with their future mental health. They're choosing to do it because they enjoy it.

Equally, nobody making that choice currently knows what the risk is.

[Guest]

26 minutes ago, Griff said:

Are you assuming that players would get the same money for playing, say, half as many games ?  I think not.

Furlough just doesn't explain it.

There wasn't just furlough though, there were other business grants available. As well as the reduced costs of not opening a stadium. 

[Damien]

25 minutes ago, Griff said:

Are you assuming that players would get the same money for playing, say, half as many games ?  I think not.

Furlough just doesn't explain it.

You asked a question and yes furlough does explain it.

Super league clubs lost vast amounts of money. The clubs that did better in the lower reaches did so because of furlough as it covered most of their costs and many supporters and sponsors still financially supported their club through things like season tickets despite not getting games.

[Griff]

3 minutes ago, Johnoco said:

There wasn't just furlough though, there were other business grants available. As well as the reduced costs of not opening a stadium. 

Other business grants ?   If you owned the ground - which few do these days.

Reduced costs ?  Well, yes, which is why we should play less games.  My point entirely.

[Griff]

4 minutes ago, Damien said:

You asked a question and yes furlough does explain it.

Super league clubs lost vast amounts of money. The clubs that did better in the lower reaches did so because of furlough as it covered most of their costs and many supporters and sponsors still financially supported their club through things like season tickets despite not getting games.

Superleague is a different scenario.

 

[Damien]

1 minute ago, Griff said:

Superleague is a different scenario.

 

You didn't specify a scenario to make it different.

You can't talk about the financial success of many clubs and just decide ignore the ones that struggled. 

[tim2]

13 hours ago, Tabby said:

Then simply don’t play it. 

And when everybody stops playing it?

When parents don't take their kids to play?

[Blind side johnny]

2 hours 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.

This.

The potential catalogue of injury and subsequent liability continues to grow.

[Guest]

10 minutes ago, Griff said:

Other business grants ?   If you owned the ground - which few do these days.

Reduced costs ?  Well, yes, which is why we should play less games.  My point entirely.

For instance, If you were operating as a business (before covid kicked in, so no just starting one on the hoof) you could get a £10K grant. Whether you ran a pub or a corner shop. One guy I know bought a new Merc with his.

Free gratis and for nowt. Other types of business help was available too. 

Its rather like asking why did people on low incomes manage to save money during C19? Not because they had more coming in but less coming out. 

[Blind side johnny]

2 hours ago, DavidM said:

Ask the ‘ others ‘ , ie the players , what they think ? You think they want to radically change the nature of the game they choose to play 

I don't know what employment you have/had Dave but I'm sure that, if you had suffered any industrial injury you would have been happy for your employer to trot out this lame excuse.

[Blind side johnny]

56 minutes ago, MZH said:

I remember when all of the concussion stuff started to really come out in American football, there were a number of players who basically said look, I'd be a total nobody without the NFL. It's given me everything I could have ever dreamed of when the alternative was a dead end job or being in a gang or whatever. So if I end up with problems in later life then so be it.

The difference is, if you are a decent American football player it will make you a multi millionaire, and I'm sure there will still be lots of people willing to take the risk. Who's going to risk their health for a salary barely above the national average?

I agree with you it's a real concern for the future of the sport.

Peculiarly, sportsmen in the USA are excluded from the normal protections offered to "regular" employees.

[Blind side johnny]

39 minutes ago, Saint 1 said:

Nobody is being forced to take risks with their future mental health. They're choosing to do it because they enjoy it.

They are employees and their employers have a statutory duty of care, just like yours does/did.

[Griff]

1 hour ago, Damien said:

You didn't specify a scenario to make it different.

You can't talk about the financial success of many clubs and just decide ignore the ones that struggled. 

I'm specifying it now.

[Whippet13]

Concussion detection mouthguards to be rolled out across the game in Britain:

RFL approves concussion-detecting mouthguards across rugby league | Rugby league | The Guardian

 

[Scubby]

36 minutes ago, Whippet13 said:

Concussion detection mouthguards to be rolled out across the game in Britain:

RFL approves concussion-detecting mouthguards across rugby league | Rugby league | The Guardian

 

That's a kick in the teeth for those that don't wear them.

[Lowdesert]

5 hours ago, Chris22 said:

I see the 10m rule going to 5m to reduce impact and a reduction in sub numbers to stop 'impact' players crashing into tired bodies.

There could be nothing done while the data from the new mouth guards is examined.

A real issue, which is the elephant in the room, is just playing to the laws of the game.  Far too many laws are ignored by officials and players.  Based on what I’ve seen over the last 10 years, playing to the laws would be a step change and if we can’t deal with those, we will struggle with something as complex as concussion.

[whatmichaelsays]

It's obvious which way the wind is blowing, and yet people want to pee in the other direction. Making the game safer and "toning down the biff" won't kill this sport, but parents refusing to let their kids play, insurers refusing to insure and legal claims from ex-players will. 

I take a bit of issue with the whole "professional players have a choice" argument. 

Yes, the players may choose to sign a contract, but there are two important issues with that. 

Firstly, that doesn't absolve the club of their duty of care as employers

Secondly, whilst the players may choose to sign the contract, what they don't get to choose is what they're forced to do under the terms of that contract. The players don't have a voice in the the number of games they're expected to play. They don't have a voice in being made to play games with short turnarounds, or multiple games in the space of a week. They don't have a voice when it comes to the training methods and regimes adopted at that club. All of these things they're compelled to go along with contractually, and all of these things can be changed by the sporting or commercial whims of the club and the league. If my employer asked me to do something under the terms of my contract that I didn't think was safe, I would refuse to do it and I would, in all probability, have the weight of the law to support me in that. Do our players really have the same choice and protection in that respect? 

If this was any other industry, where certain practices were suspected of being damaging to people's long-term health, it wouldn't be accepted. There are lots of jobs that have risk, but those jobs are forced to adapt to those risks - it's why we don't have huge problems in this country with roofers falling off scaffolding, truck drivers falling asleep at the wheel or construction workers being killed on site (and why the Western world rightly criticises what's going on with projects like the World Cup stadiums in Qatar). It's also why we don't build factories out of asbestos any more. We didn't say to those people "you chose to work in a factory with asbestos - it's your fault you got cancer". 

This narrative isn't going away, so the sport really has a choice - be proactive and respond to this challenge, or take the head in sand approach, hoping that it can get away with as minimal changes as possible, because that's what commercial pressures of today dictate. 

[Lowdesert]

6 minutes ago, whatmichaelsays said:

It's obvious which way the wind is blowing, and yet people want to pee in the other direction. Making the game safer and "toning down the biff" won't kill this sport, but parents refusing to let their kids play, insurers refusing to insure and legal claims from ex-players will. 

I take a bit of issue with the whole "professional players have a choice" argument. 

Yes, the players may choose to sign a contract, but what they don't get to choose is what they're forced to do under the terms of that contract. The players don't have a voice in the the number of games they're expected to play. They don't have a voice in being made to play games with short turnarounds, or multiple games in the space of a week. They don't gave a voice when it comes to the training methods and regimes adopted at that club. All of these things they're compelled to go along with contractually, and all of these things can be changed by the sporting or commercial whims of the club and the league. Do our players really have a choice in that respect? 

If this was any other industry, where certain practices were suspected of being damaging to people's long-term health, it wouldn't be accepted. There are lots of jobs that have risk, but those jobs are forced to adapt to those risks - it's why we don't have huge problems in this country with roofers falling off scaffolding, truck drivers falling asleep at the wheel or construction workers being killed on site (and why the Western world rightly criticises what's going on with projects like the World Cup stadiums in Qatar). It's also why we don't build factories out of asbestos any more. We didn't say to those people "you chose to work in a factory with asbestos - it's your fault you got cancer". 

This narrative isn't going away, so the sport really has a choice - be proactive and respond to this challenge, or take the head in sand approach, hoping that it can get away with as minimal changes as possible, because that's what commercial pressures of today dictate. 

The mouth guards incentive is reactive, whereas aiming at the root causes plus effective communication & education with coaches and players on safer techniques are proactive, quick wins and easy to do.  All this should be happening 1st month if pre season.

Still doesn’t take away the legal big hit.  I don’t want that taking away.  

[iffleyox]

22 minutes ago, whatmichaelsays said:

It's obvious which way the wind is blowing, and yet people want to pee in the other direction. Making the game safer and "toning down the biff" won't kill this sport, but parents refusing to let their kids play, insurers refusing to insure and legal claims from ex-players will. 

I take a bit of issue with the whole "professional players have a choice" argument. 

Yes, the players may choose to sign a contract, but there are two important issues with that. 

Firstly, that doesn't absolve the club of their duty of care as employers

Secondly, whilst the players may choose to sign the contract, what they don't get to choose is what they're forced to do under the terms of that contract. The players don't have a voice in the the number of games they're expected to play. They don't have a voice in being made to play games with short turnarounds, or multiple games in the space of a week. They don't gave a voice when it comes to the training methods and regimes adopted at that club. All of these things they're compelled to go along with contractually, and all of these things can be changed by the sporting or commercial whims of the club and the league. If my employer asked me to do something under the terms of my contract that I didn't think was safe, I would refuse to do it and I would, in all probability, have the weight of the law to support me in that. Do our players really have the same choice and protection in that respect? 

If this was any other industry, where certain practices were suspected of being damaging to people's long-term health, it wouldn't be accepted. There are lots of jobs that have risk, but those jobs are forced to adapt to those risks - it's why we don't have huge problems in this country with roofers falling off scaffolding, truck drivers falling asleep at the wheel or construction workers being killed on site (and why the Western world rightly criticises what's going on with projects like the World Cup stadiums in Qatar). It's also why we don't build factories out of asbestos any more. We didn't say to those people "you chose to work in a factory with asbestos - it's your fault you got cancer". 

This narrative isn't going away, so the sport really has a choice - be proactive and respond to this challenge, or take the head in sand approach, hoping that it can get away with as minimal changes as possible, because that's what commercial pressures of today dictate. 

you've also got the issue, and I know at 18 they're legally responsible for their own decisions, that what you think is a good idea and you're happy to do at 18-24 you might be regretting by 30 - job, smoking, drugs, choice of girlfriend, whatever. You might regret choosing to be a chartered accountant, but you can get out of that at any time and it doesn't pop up 4 decades down the line and give you dementia.

An approach to do nothing is basically turning to the players in later life and saying 'well, you played silly games, so here's your silly prize' 

which I'm not sure cuts it any more.

[whatmichaelsays]

3 minutes ago, iffleyox said:

you've also got the issue, and I know at 18 they're legally responsible for their own decisions, that what you think is a good idea and you're happy to do at 18-24 you might be regretting by 30 - job, smoking, drugs, choice of girlfriend, whatever. You might regret choosing to be a chartered accountant, but you can get out of that at any time and it doesn't pop up 4 decades down the line and give you dementia.

An approach to do nothing is basically turning to the players in later life and saying 'well, you played silly games, so here's your silly prize' 

which I'm not sure cuts it any more.

Agree, and I think there is actually a "human decency" element to all of this. 

Arguing that the players "know what they're doing, understand the risks and should therefore live with the consequences" bascially just demeans them to the level of circus freaks, giving themselves live-limiting injuries and illnesses for our amusement, the financial gain of others and, in most cases, pretty modest financial rewards for themselves. 

I'm not sure what that says about the people who want to derive entertainment, or to try and extract profit, from that. 

[Wakefield Ram]

The game needs to take reasonable steps such as limiting training contact sessions (NFL have 1 contact session a week) , clamping down on all contact with head and neck (RU has done this already) , stop players leading with their forearm because they're carrying the ball (RU has done this already), annual medicals for pro players (boxers have licences), mandatory mouth guards. It's impossible to remove all risk, but you can take steps to reduce it.

And I know a keen RL fan who's hoping her son will pack rugby in because of what's she's seen about dementia. Her son is 7 years old. Rightly or wrongly that's her view and I suspect she won't be alone in this.

[Dallas Mead]

1 hour ago, whatmichaelsays said:

It's obvious which way the wind is blowing, and yet people want to pee in the other direction. Making the game safer and "toning down the biff" won't kill this sport, but parents refusing to let their kids play, insurers refusing to insure and legal claims from ex-players will. 

I take a bit of issue with the whole "professional players have a choice" argument. 

Yes, the players may choose to sign a contract, but there are two important issues with that. 

Firstly, that doesn't absolve the club of their duty of care as employers

Secondly, whilst the players may choose to sign the contract, what they don't get to choose is what they're forced to do under the terms of that contract. The players don't have a voice in the the number of games they're expected to play. They don't have a voice in being made to play games with short turnarounds, or multiple games in the space of a week. They don't have a voice when it comes to the training methods and regimes adopted at that club. All of these things they're compelled to go along with contractually, and all of these things can be changed by the sporting or commercial whims of the club and the league. If my employer asked me to do something under the terms of my contract that I didn't think was safe, I would refuse to do it and I would, in all probability, have the weight of the law to support me in that. Do our players really have the same choice and protection in that respect? 

If this was any other industry, where certain practices were suspected of being damaging to people's long-term health, it wouldn't be accepted. There are lots of jobs that have risk, but those jobs are forced to adapt to those risks - it's why we don't have huge problems in this country with roofers falling off scaffolding, truck drivers falling asleep at the wheel or construction workers being killed on site (and why the Western world rightly criticises what's going on with projects like the World Cup stadiums in Qatar). It's also why we don't build factories out of asbestos any more. We didn't say to those people "you chose to work in a factory with asbestos - it's your fault you got cancer". 

This narrative isn't going away, so the sport really has a choice - be proactive and respond to this challenge, or take the head in sand approach, hoping that it can get away with as minimal changes as possible, because that's what commercial pressures of today dictate. 

I wish I’d had the patience to type all this out when I started the thread as I concur with every word.  Just read the above guys, it says it all brilliantly.