Legal action confirmed

[LeeF]

31 minutes ago, bobbruce said:

That tackle was the one I was thinking about in my post. If these players are successful then the next cab off the rank regarding litigation will be players suing each other for bad tackles. I wonder what Bobby insurance is like. 

The MRP are still writing the minutes from that incident 

[moorside roughyed]

I can see disclaimers in people's contracts somewhere down the line.

[andyscoot]

Does anybody more legally minded than me know how it works liability wise; are the RFL liable for injuries to players playing the sport? Would they have to prove that the RFL knew if the risks but didn't alter the rules to protect them?

[Jinking Jimmy]

8 hours ago, Desert Skipper said:

Brain damage action confirmed for 75 ex-players

That’s a big, damaging action. Not least because of it’s cunning timing. I obviously sympathise with the plight of these individuals, and hope we can learn lessons from the past to mitigate issues going forward, but I prefer James Graham’s take on it all:

'I am not looking for anyone's sympathy, I have repeatedly said maybe the meaning of life is finding something worth dying for and rugby league was this for me. I have to take responsibility for the way I have lived and played’

I know now why I have total respect for James Graham and none for Bobbie Goulding.

[Josef K]

7 hours ago, Desert Skipper said:

That wasn’t a tackle per se, it was a calculated shot to the head. I wonder how many games you’d get for that these days?

As an aside, watching games from 20 or so years ago doesn’t half show how much more open and entertaining RL could be. No wonder the atmosphere was far better.

The atmosphere wasn’t like that all the time. 

[Josef K]

5 hours ago, bobbruce said:

Having watched that what a thing of beauty Newloves step was before the Perelini try. 

Newlove was a fantastic player. One of my all time favourite Saints players. 

[Josef K]

Goulding still looks in good shape, in fact he looks a load bigger. 

[Wakefield Ram]

10 hours ago, Chris22 said:

I've made the point before but regardless of what anyone thinks of the parties involved or their representatives. It doesn't matter because this is happening, and we can't stop it.

I have no idea whether the claims will succeed or not but we already face the impact. The RFL's insurance premiums quadrupling for one. I dread to think of the size of the legal bills, or any compensation payout if successful. This is a major worry for the sport.

Thankfully, we've taken huge strides since these players have retired. HIAs being the main one and mandatory stand down periods for concussion. More to do, as always, but we've come a long way in the last 10 years.

Take a look at this video (not the best quality). This happened in 2011 and Luke Robinson played on. That would never happen now and we're better for it.

 

Some strides, welcome but nowhere near enough. Started a clampdown on head tackles but after a few weeks later dropped after coaches bravely decided to put their short term careers ahead of their players long term brain health. Just a few weeks ago Victor Radley appeared to be fitting on the pitch after a head knock. He played the following week. He's playing in the WC.

NFL limits contact training sessions to one a week. We can do that. And we need to remove high tackles as far as we can. RU did it a few seasons ago. Players will adapt. And reduce the 10m to 5m or 7m to reduce the impacts. 

You can't remove risk, it's part of the game, but the game must do everything it can to mitigate it to protect the players and protect the game against legal action. Players shouldn't needlessly be risking brain damage just because we like to see "big hits"  or head tackles because "it's a man's game". 

Pro-boxers have annual brain scans and found an article that said that started in 1997. And boxers have only a few fights a year. Or do we just accept that players like James Graham get brain damaged?

Your brain is a jelly like substance. Every big contact will rattle your brain around against your hard skull.

Edited October 9, 2022 by Wakefield Ram

[DACS]

The problem with the 'removing high tackles' bit is that a lot of concussions/head knocks come from players going low and getting KO'd making tackles. Tackling aiming at the ball is generally safer for the tackler than bending and trying to tackle hip high.

I don't think any of us are expert in this field, but it strikes me that it would be incredibly hard for a player from the 80s/90s to claim the RFL at the time didn't look out for player welfare. The high tackles and clearly concussed players getting up and playing on don't look good but nobody knew it could cause long-term issues.

Also, good luck suing the RFL. How much money would 75 players get each given the RFL itself probably has virtually no cash or assets?

[SteveT]

13 hours ago, bobbruce said:

Don’t know what the end game is for these players. There isn’t millions of £ swanning about the RFL coffers. If they are successful they will get barely enough to cover their legal fees. Whilst bankrupting the RFL in the process. Then denying thousands of kids the opportunities that they have had. Plus the possibility that they are then opening a can of worms that could escalate into players starting to sue over individual tackles. Some of these players  could do with looking back over some old footage just to check their tackling technique was perfect. 

I actually laughed when I started reading the bbc article (have been working so not read it all). The first 2 players I saw mentioned were no angels. I remember Bobbie Goulding clattering Clyde (I think) round the head and his gum shield having to be removed from his throat. Ryan McDonald was, hmm,  not the cleanest of players.

[JohnM]

Desired effect achieved. The media seem to have picked the story up.

[Harry Stottle]

4 hours ago, SteveT said:

I actually laughed when I started reading the bbc article (have been working so not read it all). The first 2 players I saw mentioned were no angels. I remember Bobbie Goulding clattering Clyde (I think) round the head and his gum shield having to be removed from his throat. Ryan McDonald was, hmm,  not the cleanest of players.

Wasn't the Clyde incident Shaun Edwards who inflicted the head shot?

[Wakefield Ram]

7 hours ago, DACS said:

The problem with the 'removing high tackles' bit is that a lot of concussions/head knocks come from players going low and getting KO'd making tackles. Tackling aiming at the ball is generally safer for the tackler than bending and trying to tackle hip high.

I don't think any of us are expert in this field, but it strikes me that it would be incredibly hard for a player from the 80s/90s to claim the RFL at the time didn't look out for player welfare. The high tackles and clearly concussed players getting up and playing on don't look good but nobody knew it could cause long-term issues.

Also, good luck suing the RFL. How much money would 75 players get each given the RFL itself probably has virtually no cash or assets?

There was some research that showed that tackling high was twice as likely to result in a head knock because of the risk of head clashes to tackler and ball carrier. You can't remove the risk but there's no excuse for head tackles. 

I'll see if I can find the research.

[Wakefield Ram]

4 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Wasn't the Clyde incident Shaun Edwards who inflicted the head shot?

Yes it was. And to be honest, It's not really relevant. 

[paul hicks]

17 hours ago, Wakey Til I Die said:

They only own the lease, not the land.

yes, but the lease is worth a couple of million i would guess. as long as its a long lease.

[whatmichaelsays]

This was always in the post - it's just a case of when it arrived. 

As others have said, Goulding (and any other player) has a right to make his case and the the merits of that case examined in court. 

Personally, I do think the sport has some questions to answer on this front. Whilst we've undoubtedly made some positive strides in dealing with head injuries and concussion protocols, many of these do seem to be "after the event" (ie, after you've taken a bang). I think there are questions to answer around, for instance, the number of games and the scheduling of games, as well as training practices, which may contribute to less visible signs of concussion over a prolonged period of time. As a sport, we haven't really helped ourselves in this instance with some high-profile figures making the argument for double-header weekends and comments like "I don't want to hear any complaints about player welfare", and it's not like we have allowed the players themselves to have much of a say in this either. 

What I will say though is that anyone talking about "disclaimers" as a solution to this is really missing the point here. It's obvious which way the wind is blowing, and yet people still want to pee in the other direction. 

We can't just hide behind tthe "professional players have a choice" argument, because that's ultimately putting the risk burden onto the players, and absolving the employers who are trying to profit from these practices.

[burningmuscles]

I genuinely have no idea why there isn't a mandatory enforcement of players wearing skullcaps.

I wouldn't play a game without one, and that was 25 years ago. 
 

[Desert Skipper]

15 minutes ago, burningmuscles said:

I genuinely have no idea why there isn't a mandatory enforcement of players wearing skullcaps.

I wouldn't play a game without one, and that was 25 years ago. 
 

Does that actually prevent the brain rattling in a big collision though? I thought a skullcap had a slightly different role.

[Impartial Observer]

21 hours ago, Damien said:

Indeed, like when Bobby Goulding got a 6 match ban (dropped from 8 after appeal) for this tackle on Neil Cowie on 3m 48s. Didn't Goulding also dabble in boxing after RL too?:

 

Mike Rush would have got him not guilty

[RigbyLuger]

13 minutes ago, Desert Skipper said:

Does that actually prevent the brain rattling in a big collision though? I thought a skullcap had a slightly different role.

Just stops cauliflower ears? I don't understand how a bit of foam stops anything else. Made me laugh when Petr Cech wore one for Chelsea.

[Impartial Observer]

31 minutes ago, burningmuscles said:

I genuinely have no idea why there isn't a mandatory enforcement of players wearing skullcaps.

I wouldn't play a game without one, and that was 25 years ago. 
 

Doesnt the research say they offer very little if any protection? 

[Damien]

35 minutes ago, burningmuscles said:

I genuinely have no idea why there isn't a mandatory enforcement of players wearing skullcaps.

I wouldn't play a game without one, and that was 25 years ago. 
 

Because they dont stop concussion or the negative effects of head knocks. If anything they give a false sense of protection.

[Saint Toppy]

23 hours ago, Chris22 said:

If successful, the RFL pay their legal fees.

Not True, popular misconception. The judge decides who pays what legal fees for both parties in Civil cases.

The players may 'win' and the judge awards them damages but could also then decide that each party pays their own legal fees, or that the 'losing party' only pays part of the other party's legal fees.

As others have said the only 'winners' in all of this will the ambulance chasing parasitic lawyers. Even if the players win the judge will decide the level of damages based on the RFL's ability to pay, no point awarding the players £100M in damages if the RFL can't pay and they just declare themselves bankrupt. In which case nobody gets anything.

 

Edited October 10, 2022 by Saint Toppy

[RP London]

2 hours ago, burningmuscles said:

I genuinely have no idea why there isn't a mandatory enforcement of players wearing skullcaps.

I wouldn't play a game without one, and that was 25 years ago. 
 

becuase a scull cap is only there to avoid abrassions and gives a bit of protection if, for example, you have fractures your skull in the past, in the same way as if you have dislocated your shoulder, shoulder pads may prevent it happening again at a low level. Skull caps do nothing to prevent the brain injuries from occuring as that is all happening inside the head. 

The NFL did a lot of research on this and their biggest clampdown is on contact training. this is to prevent the shear number build up of subconcussive injuries which occur through things like whiplash etc.. there are many more of those than there are of headknocks. This is what builds up over time (of course being clouted round the head doesnt help but its very much a factor rather than a key, the reason they are picked up on is perception and "the look"). 

16 hours ago, andyscoot said:

Does anybody more legally minded than me know how it works liability wise; are the RFL liable for injuries to players playing the sport? Would they have to prove that the RFL knew if the risks but didn't alter the rules to protect them?

That is going to be the key to this entire thing. Not that playing caused this and the defence may well admit that playing caused it, but the key will be: Did the RFL know, how much they knew and how did they attempt to mitigate the factors. 

If they can prove that either they didnt know at all about the subconcussive stuff, or that they mitigated the factors to the best of the medical advice of the time then the players wont win as far as i understand it.

[RP London]

19 hours ago, LeeF said:

The MRP are still writing the minutes from that incident 

Leeds are still appealing