Concussion (Merged Threads)

[Guest]

10 hours ago, Mattrhino said:

Sorry thats a load of rubbish. There are loads of jobs that are much more dangerous than playing RL for alot less money. Military for one, roofers, fishermen, refuse collectors etc.. but none of them or there families are able to sue thier employers if they die or in later life have difficulty. 

If these people could sue, society would literally stop. 

Mate, you absolutely *can* sue your employer if you get injured or killed at work. I've known several people who have. My own brother has just had a payout for 'vibration white finger' after a lifetime of working on building sites and using power tools.

[Blind side johnny]

18 hours ago, Harry Stottle said:

What do they say Johnny, "wake up and smell the coffee" 

This is a blame culture we live in where it can be pursued and a bob or two can be made it must certainly will, and the negative publicity generated from it will do sports like League and Union no good whatsoever. 

This one lawyer Richard Boardman has in the region of 50 League player's and 175 Union guys awaiting the the outcome of these first 'test cases' going forward will be very interesting.

These are "jobs" Harry, whether you like it or not. Employees have statutory responsibilities towards their employees. It is not "blame culture" as you try to frame it.

[Harry Stottle]

1 hour ago, Blind side johnny said:

These are "jobs" Harry, whether you like it or not. Employees have statutory responsibilities towards their employees. It is not "blame culture" as you try to frame it.

Not a 'Blame Culture'?

I sold my company to a large American Multinational concern and as part of the sale I had to stay on for two years for what they termed as 'management transition'. I stayed for a little over 12 months such was the working conditions they wanted the guy's and ladies on the shop floor and in the offices to adhere to, for things that I argued were ridiculous they could answer me back with case histories that were fought and lost in the states, and so all their employees wherever in the world factories were sited had to employ the same conditions. 

They said in the States the legal culture is such that it will contest anything and  everything if it is thought a buck can be made - do you remember the case a few years ago when a very obese guy sued Macdonalds because they continued to sell him burgers when he asked for them! - and we all know what happens 'Stateside' finds it's way to these shores, honestly they were quite literally frightened of their own shadows.

Tell me what statutory responsibilities and work practises should club owners have insisted their employees - the players now contesting - to have adopted to be completely free of avoiding injury in a high collision sport such as Rugby League Football, save for "stay in the dressing room"?

[RP London]

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.

 

[whatmichaelsays]

On 20/11/2021 at 21:32, Mattrhino said:

Sorry thats a load of rubbish. There are loads of jobs that are much more dangerous than playing RL for alot less money. Military for one, roofers, fishermen, refuse collectors etc.. but none of them or there families are able to sue thier employers if they die or in later life have difficulty. 

If these people could sue, society would literally stop. 

If we had a situation in society where we had a growing number of construction workers being left with life-limiting or life-threatening injuries because of what they were doing at work, society would very rightly question why that is and what the industry and government is doing about it.

It's why we have health and safety regulations, it's why we have PPE, it's why we have minimum training standards, it's why we have measures to limit the workload that people are forced to take on, it's why we have minimum standards on working environments and it's why the western world is looking on in disgust at what is happening as we speak in Qatar ahead of the World Cup, because we believe that putting construction workers in dangerous positions for the profit of others is not right. 

Those measures have come about from learning from research, accidents and incidents and if an employer flouts those measures, they are open to legal action (both civil and criminal). 

Here we have a situation where the research and evidence is showing (or at least, strongly suggesting) that there is a correlation between contact sports and severe head injuries and conditions. The sport cannot ignore that - either legally or morally. It has a duty of care to the players and if that means the sport has to change, then it has to change - or be willing to face the consequences of its inaction.

None of that is "a load of rubbish". This issue is an existential threat to the sport because unless it's tackled, parents will refuse to let their kids play, insurers will refuse to insure and, at some point, an ex-player will win a negligence claim. 

This isn't even about litigation culture as some others want to try and paint it is. This is about doing the right thing. It seems that some people's love for the sport doesn't seem to extend to the people actually involved in it. 

[JohnM]

18 minutes ago, whatmichaelsays said:

If we had a situation in society where we had a growing number of construction workers being left with life-limiting or life-threatening injuries because of what they were doing at work, society would very rightly question why that is and what the industry and government is doing about it.

It's why we have health and safety regulations, it's why we have PPE, it's why we have minimum training standards, it's why we have measures to limit the workload that people are forced to take on, it's why we have minimum standards on working environments and it's why the western world is looking on in disgust at what is happening as we speak in Qatar ahead of the World Cup, because we believe that putting construction workers in dangerous positions for the profit of others is not right. 

Those measures have come about from learning from research, accidents and incidents and if an employer flouts those measures, they are open to legal action (both civil and criminal). 

Here we have a situation where the research and evidence is showing (or at least, strongly suggesting) that there is a correlation between contact sports and severe head injuries and conditions. The sport cannot ignore that - either legally or morally. It has a duty of care to the players and if that means the sport has to change, then it has to change - or be willing to face the consequences of its inaction.

None of that is "a load of rubbish". This issue is an existential threat to the sport because unless it's tackled, parents will refuse to let their kids play, insurers will refuse to insure and, at some point, an ex-player will win a negligence claim. 

This isn't even about litigation culture as some others want to try and paint it is. This is about doing the right thing. It seems that some people's love for the sport doesn't seem to extend to the people actually involved in it. 

Whist I agree with almost everyone in your post (not that it matters, of course), I think it is over the top to suggest that some people's love for the sport does not extend to those actually involved in it.  In any case, how do you know they are not involved in it.

Fortunately, it really is not about the litigation culture, as I expect the lawyers are acting pro bono.

 

[whatmichaelsays]

10 minutes ago, JohnM said:

Whist I agree with almost everyone in your post (not that it matters, of course), I think it is over the top to suggest that some people's love for the sport does not extend to those actually involved in it.  In any case, how do you know they are not involved in it.

Let me put a bit of context on that, because it might come across as a bit of a throwaway line. 

We've seen suggestions from some posters on this issue around making players sign disclaimers. We've seen people dismissing this issue as one "driven by ambulance chasing lawyers" and we've seen people suggesting that making the game safer for players is "killing" or "will kill" the sport. 

To me, that doesn't really show a lot of empathy for this issue and, in particular, for the players who are having to very much live with this issue. 

I don't think it is entirely unfair to say that people taking such a viewpoint are not doing so from a "love for the sport" perspective, but rather a "love for the version of the sport that they like" perspective. It's almost as if they don't care what the cost of this issue is to the sport, as long as "their version" of RL is left unchanged. 

[RP London]

1 hour ago, whatmichaelsays said:

Let me put a bit of context on that, because it might come across as a bit of a throwaway line. 

We've seen suggestions from some posters on this issue around making players sign disclaimers. We've seen people dismissing this issue as one "driven by ambulance chasing lawyers" and we've seen people suggesting that making the game safer for players is "killing" or "will kill" the sport. 

To me, that doesn't really show a lot of empathy for this issue and, in particular, for the players who are having to very much live with this issue. 

I don't think it is entirely unfair to say that people taking such a viewpoint are not doing so from a "love for the sport" perspective, but rather a "love for the version of the sport that they like" perspective. It's almost as if they don't care what the cost of this issue is to the sport, as long as "their version" of RL is left unchanged. 

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.

[Wakefield Ram]

1 hour ago, whatmichaelsays said:

Let me put a bit of context on that, because it might come across as a bit of a throwaway line. 

We've seen suggestions from some posters on this issue around making players sign disclaimers. We've seen people dismissing this issue as one "driven by ambulance chasing lawyers" and we've seen people suggesting that making the game safer for players is "killing" or "will kill" the sport. 

To me, that doesn't really show a lot of empathy for this issue and, in particular, for the players who are having to very much live with this issue. 

I don't think it is entirely unfair to say that people taking such a viewpoint are not doing so from a "love for the sport" perspective, but rather a "love for the version of the sport that they like" perspective. It's almost as if they don't care what the cost of this issue is to the sport, as long as "their version" of RL is left unchanged. 

There are plenty of supporters who cheer when an opposition player stays down after a tackle. A mindset seems to have developed where it's okay to try and deliberately injure an opponent through a "big hit". There are views on here that trying to reduce the risk of brain injuries to players will spoil the spectacle or make the game go "soft".

 

[whatmichaelsays]

55 minutes ago, RP London said:

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.

I agree, and I think this is the problem with the "the players choose to do it" line of defence. 

I said it earlier up the thread but whilst the players do choose to sign a contract to play rugby league, they don't have a lot of choice - or much of a voice - on what they are asked to do under the terms of that contract. They don't have a say in the training regimes, the playing frequency or the care the club provides. They also, crucially, don't have a lot of employment protections to help them push back against their employer if they believe their practices are unsafe. 

Like you, I played RL knowing full well that it might give me a broken leg or a dickie knee (and it did both of those things), but "dementia" was never a word I heard in any dressing room or training field. 

[fighting irish]

2 hours ago, whatmichaelsays said:

I agree, and I think this is the problem with the "the players choose to do it" line of defence. 

I said it earlier up the thread but whilst the players do choose to sign a contract to play rugby league, they don't have a lot of choice - or much of a voice - on what they are asked to do under the terms of that contract. They don't have a say in the training regimes, the playing frequency or the care the club provides. They also, crucially, don't have a lot of employment protections to help them push back against their employer if they believe their practices are unsafe. 

Like you, I played RL knowing full well that it might give me a broken leg or a dickie knee (and it did both of those things), but "dementia" was never a word I heard in any dressing room or training field. 

One aspect of this problem, which doesn't seem to have been mentioned so far, (forgive me, if I've missed it?) is the fact that, just as you say in your post above, the link between mild traumatic head injury (concussion) and early onset dementia is a fairly new discovery, and even now, can't be claimed as proven.

There was never any talk of it, when I played and as stated, neither was it known about when you and RP played. The idea then that some employers, ''were aware'' of the risks and ''insisted'' players play anyway is surely, a bit harsh.

In those cases where players who may have played their last game say, more than 10 years ago, their claims against their employers (the clubs) or the RFL may be unsuccessful on the basis that the clubs/RFL could not have known.

It's crucially important now though that we are seen to act responsibly, in the light of the new information coming to the fore.

Given the inconclusive nature of the evidence gathered to date, the line we need to toe is still invisible.

The evidence we have so far, is a bit like the statistical claim that smoking causes cancer, but we've all heard stories of some people smoking their whole lives without developing the dreadful disease. So there is some personal (perhaps genetic) component to the development of the disease.

So whilst the stats, prove the case (almost) they can't tell us which individuals are susceptible before the onset of the disease.

Someone mentioned recently about a new measurement device mounted in a gum shield, which can monitor impact forces (rates of accelerations/decelerations) which might enable some quantification of the product of the total number of shocks multiplied by the severity of the impacts, which can then be correlated with the onset on the disease in later life, so provide guidance on ways to minimise the risk. 

It sounds like a long-term project though.

In the meantime, people will likely continue to get hurt and the games future remains in jeopardy.    

[RP London]

1 hour ago, fighting irish said:

One aspect of this problem, which doesn't seem to have been mentioned so far, (forgive me, if I've missed it?) is the fact that, just as you say in your post above, the link between mild traumatic head injury (concussion) and early onset dementia is a fairly new discovery, and even now, can't be claimed as proven.

There was never any talk of it, when I played and as stated, neither was it known about when you and RP played. The idea then that some employers, ''were aware'' of the risks and ''insisted'' players play anyway is surely, a bit harsh.

In those cases where players who may have played their last game say, more than 10 years ago, their claims against their employers (the clubs) or the RFL may be unsuccessful on the basis that the clubs/RFL could not have known.

It's crucially important now though that we are seen to act responsibly, in the light of the new information coming to the fore.

Given the inconclusive nature of the evidence gathered to date, the line we need to toe is still invisible.

The evidence we have so far, is a bit like the statistical claim that smoking causes cancer, but we've all heard stories of some people smoking their whole lives without developing the dreadful disease. So there is some personal (perhaps genetic) component to the development of the disease.

So whilst the stats, prove the case (almost) they can't tell us which individuals are susceptible before the onset of the disease.

Someone mentioned recently about a new measurement device mounted in a gum shield, which can monitor impact forces (rates of accelerations/decelerations) which might enable some quantification of the product of the total number of shocks multiplied by the severity of the impacts, which can then be correlated with the onset on the disease in later life, so provide guidance on ways to minimise the risk. 

It sounds like a long-term project though.

In the meantime, people will likely continue to get hurt and the games future remains in jeopardy.    

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. 

[Blind side johnny]

5 hours ago, fighting irish said:

One aspect of this problem, which doesn't seem to have been mentioned so far, (forgive me, if I've missed it?) is the fact that, just as you say in your post above, the link between mild traumatic head injury (concussion) and early onset dementia is a fairly new discovery, and even now, can't be claimed as proven.

There was never any talk of it, when I played and as stated, neither was it known about when you and RP played. The idea then that some employers, ''were aware'' of the risks and ''insisted'' players play anyway is surely, a bit harsh.

In those cases where players who may have played their last game say, more than 10 years ago, their claims against their employers (the clubs) or the RFL may be unsuccessful on the basis that the clubs/RFL could not have known.

It's crucially important now though that we are seen to act responsibly, in the light of the new information coming to the fore.

Given the inconclusive nature of the evidence gathered to date, the line we need to toe is still invisible.

The evidence we have so far, is a bit like the statistical claim that smoking causes cancer, but we've all heard stories of some people smoking their whole lives without developing the dreadful disease. So there is some personal (perhaps genetic) component to the development of the disease.

So whilst the stats, prove the case (almost) they can't tell us which individuals are susceptible before the onset of the disease.

Someone mentioned recently about a new measurement device mounted in a gum shield, which can monitor impact forces (rates of accelerations/decelerations) which might enable some quantification of the product of the total number of shocks multiplied by the severity of the impacts, which can then be correlated with the onset on the disease in later life, so provide guidance on ways to minimise the risk. 

It sounds like a long-term project though.

In the meantime, people will likely continue to get hurt and the games future remains in jeopardy.    

All very pertinent and, if course, more likely to be tested in the courts rather than on a RL forum. I do expect that a number of our experts will be primed and ready to give their evidence and opinions when the time comes, however. Those "ambulance chasers" will be cacking themselves as we type.

[Damien]

A good move from the NRL and something that I feel needed to be done. I do feel that these decisions need to be taken away from the club and hopefully SL will follow suit in its own way:

The NRL has broken new ground and will place independent medical doctors in a central video room to rule concussed players out of matches, the most significant change to its head injury policy in years.

In another sign of rugby league’s fight to combat brain injuries, the Herald has been told by sources familiar with the situation the NRL has finalised the significant change to its concussion policy just days before the start of the NRLW season.

It follows years of lobbying from concussion experts to relieve the pressure on club-employed doctors, who have previously been the only people allowed to rule a player out of a game due to concussion symptoms.

Under the new guidelines, an independent doctor will staff the NRL’s video review bunker and can immediately rule a player out of a match if they display category one symptoms, such as loss of consciousness, failing to protect oneself when falling and unsteadiness on feet.

Previously, a player could be ruled out of a match only if a club doctor observed category one signs either live or on a sideline review monitor, or the player failed a head injury assessment in a 15-minute window after being taken from the field.

But the change, on the back of a recommendation from the NRL’s medical advisory panel, will give ultimate discretion to independent analysts who could be 2000km away from the ground in the case of Townsville’s Queensland Country Bank Stadium.

NRL 2022: Independent doctors to have power to rule out players from bunker after concussion rule change (smh.com.au)