Legal action confirmed

[gingerjon]

Just now, Gomersall said:

I just thought with the USA being compensation central the NFL would have been ahead of the game or as ahead as they could be.

The US has a lot of appeals for compensation. Not much actual compensation. (Also NFL contracts are terrible).

And it's worth looking at the history of some of them for the truth rather than the business-funded outraged response.

The woman with her payout for hot coffee being hot, for example.

[RP London]

4 minutes ago, Gomersall said:

I just thought with the USA being compensation central the NFL would have been ahead of the game or as ahead as they could be.

They are... the NFL lost their own headcase issue and now have this massive pot of money that is there for the players affected down the line.. they are very head conscious but they have rightly seen that the key is in the training and have cut contact out of practice massively (IMO they need to teach proper tackle technique rather than ramming someone with their head but anyways... ). The Dolphins and the league were castigated for what happened with Tua and questions were being asked even before he took to the field that day over whether he should have after the week before. The NFL then moved very very quickly to tighten everything up.. 

As bad a situation as this was they sorted it quickly, the RFL backed down from their tightening up.. 

[Liverpool Rover]

The difference between the NFL and RL is that the NFL did have evidence about the effects of repeated head blows and sat on it so it was revealed a lot later than it should. There is a film on it called Concussion.

 

 

[Bobby123]

On 09/10/2022 at 14:02, Chris22 said:

If successful, the RFL pay their legal fees.

What about personal protection plans ?. My grandson plays on a regular basis and is covered with such a plan.

[RP London]

43 minutes ago, Liverpool Rover said:

The difference between the NFL and RL is that the NFL did have evidence about the effects of repeated head blows and sat on it so it was revealed a lot later than it should. There is a film on it called Concussion.

 

 

Yes, good film that.. 

[Liverpool Rover]

2 hours ago, ShropshireBull said:

Or just watch the much superior PBS documentary League of Denial which shows they had known for years. Not as dramatic and much more informative. 

 

I’ve never heard of this so I’ll give it a watch. Because of this it stopped other sports such as RL from bringing in measures earlier than they could have done.

[Damien]

A strong statement from Danny Sculthorpe:

 

[Saint Toppy]

13 hours ago, Damien said:

A strong statement from Danny Sculthorpe:

 

Well done Danny S, just like the statement from James Graham they accept they played a part in the career they chose and the risks it involved, instead of just playing the victim.

[whatmichaelsays]

4 minutes ago, Saint Toppy said:

Well done Danny S, just like the statement from James Graham they accept they played a part in the career they chose and the risks it involved, instead of just playing the victim.

I understand why people applaud statements like this, but I worry that these sorts of remarks empower the "they know what they're getting themselves in for" and "make them sign disclaimers" crowd. Whilst I respect the positions that players like Graham and Sculthorpe have taken, they can't be allowed to set a narrative that the sport and the clubs can absolve their duty of care as employers and as a governing body. We don't have scaffolders making social media statements to the effect of "I knew the risks of being a scaffolder and I made good money from it, but I won't sue my employer for not making my workplace safe when I fell off a roof". 

If we end up in a position where we are expecting players to be martyrs for our own entertainment and the profit of others, then we're soon going to find that we don't have many players. These are human beings, not circus freaks. 

[JohnM]

17 minutes ago, whatmichaelsays said:

I understand why people applaud statements like this, but I worry that these sorts of remarks empower the "they know what they're getting themselves in for" and "make them sign disclaimers" crowd. Whilst I respect the positions that players like Graham and Sculthorpe have taken, they can't be allowed to set a narrative that the sport and the clubs can absolve their duty of care as employers and as a governing body. We don't have scaffolders making social media statements to the effect of "I knew the risks of being a scaffolder and I made good money from it, but I won't sue my employer for not making my workplace safe when I fell off a roof". 

If we end up in a position where we are expecting players to be martyrs for our own entertainment and the profit of others, then we're soon going to find that we don't have many players. These are human beings, not circus freaks. 

they can't be allowed to set a narrative that the sport and the clubs can absolve their duty of care as employers and as a governing body.

That's not for you to decide. They have every right to take the position they have.

The scaffolder analogy fails.

 

[whatmichaelsays]

16 minutes ago, JohnM said:

they can't be allowed to set a narrative that the sport and the clubs can absolve their duty of care as employers and as a governing body.

That's not for you to decide. They have every right to take the position they have.

The scaffolder analogy fails.

 

I'm not deciding how Graham or Sculthorpe should think about their conditions. They're entitled to think that way and I respect that, as I said in my previous post. 

My point is that there is a danger that these sorts of comments are used to "justify" inaction on this issue, because "if the players are cool with it, what do we need to change?". 

The reason why we are here in the UK, outraged at things like the number of construction workers being killed on stadium projects in Qatar, is because we used to have problems with construction worker safety and we adapted to address those problems. The same applies here. 

People talk about the clamp-down on tough play and the disciplinary as "killing the sport", ignoring that what will really "kill the sport" is inaction on this issue, because parents will refuse to let their kids play, insurers will refuse to insure, and you'll have litigation from ex-pros. 

 

[Damien]

I think everyone agrees that the RFL should take action to make the game as safe as can be based on the information we have now. The RFL certainly has a duty of care to put all necessary protocols in place to make the game as safe as possible and to mitigate any risk. Going forward this should simply be non-negotiable. 

What happened in the past is a different kettle of fish and I don't believe the RFL were sitting on this treasure trove of evidence regarding concussion. If they were then those claiming certainly have a case, similar to the NFL. I don't think the risks were particularly clear when players like Goulding were playing, and if they were then they themselves could be liable individually for some of the 'tackles' they did. Similarly, Goulding's off field activities and car crash are well known and he also took up boxing after RL. I'm not sure how anyone can conclusively see that RL caused what he has now rather than something else he did in his life.

I actually think players of a later era, such as Graham, would have far more of a case than Goulding as he played in an era when the risks were well known, and it is much more arguable whether governing bodies were negligible. Players staggering about then playing on is bound to be questioned. However as long as the RFL were following medical guidance at that time and to the letter then I think they can rightly argue that they were mitigating the risk as much as practically possible.

[Saint Toppy]

1 hour ago, whatmichaelsays said:

I'm not deciding how Graham or Sculthorpe should think about their conditions. They're entitled to think that way and I respect that, as I said in my previous post. 

My point is that there is a danger that these sorts of comments are used to "justify" inaction on this issue, because "if the players are cool with it, what do we need to change?". 

The reason why we are here in the UK, outraged at things like the number of construction workers being killed on stadium projects in Qatar, is because we used to have problems with construction worker safety and we adapted to address those problems. The same applies here. 

People talk about the clamp-down on tough play and the disciplinary as "killing the sport", ignoring that what will really "kill the sport" is inaction on this issue, because parents will refuse to let their kids play, insurers will refuse to insure, and you'll have litigation from ex-pros. 

 

Nobody is advocating inaction, least of all Sculthorpe or Graham, quite the opposite in Graham's case. Instead of the poor me, victim attitude he set it upon himself to work with the sport governing body and the scientists to make improvements for the next generation of players.

As for your comparison to the construction industry - completely pointless. From someone who works in that industry and has done for over 30yrs I can tell you that the overwhelming majority of incidents that occur on sites are down to individuals choosing not to follow rules & procedures. The next largest cause is 3rd party actions and its only a very tiny number of instances where the incident was the direct result of neglect by the employer.

And before you start trawling the internet for construction industry accident data from sites like the HSE, they only have date on serious reportable accidents or from their own inspections. The vast majority of incidents that happen are non-reportable and that data site with employers & clients only and is only available via a FOI request. 

[tim2]

1 hour ago, Saint Toppy said:

Nobody is advocating inaction, least of all Sculthorpe or Graham, quite the opposite in Graham's case. Instead of the poor me, victim attitude he set it upon himself to work with the sport governing body and the scientists to make improvements for the next generation of players.

As for your comparison to the construction industry - completely pointless. From someone who works in that industry and has done for over 30yrs I can tell you that the overwhelming majority of incidents that occur on sites are down to individuals choosing not to follow rules & procedures. The next largest cause is 3rd party actions and its only a very tiny number of instances where the incident was the direct result of neglect by the employer.

And before you start trawling the internet for construction industry accident data from sites like the HSE, they only have date on serious reportable accidents or from their own inspections. The vast majority of incidents that happen are non-reportable and that data site with employers & clients only and is only available via a FOI request. 

In my previous (and I hope final) job I did all the mandatory H&S training, even though I was working on a computer at home and not out in the field constructing and repairing towers. The interesting thing was that one of the most dangerous things they instructed people on, safety wise, was driving to customers or to a site....

On a historical note, my great-great-grandfather died falling off a roof he was repairing at an iron works. He copped the blame for taking the wrong route down. I suspect these days the overall precautions would have been far better! As a coincidental note, it was in 1895.  

[Saint Toppy]

1 hour ago, tim2 said:

The interesting thing was that one of the most dangerous things they instructed people on, safety wise, was driving to customers or to a site....

Most employers in the industry (including mine) have mandatory 'driving on company business' training every year which includes a check on your ability to drive for work (random D&A tests, check you have correct level of insurance etc.), plus for every site visit a mandatory Risk Assessment for the journey. 

This is why in my earlier post I said any comparison with the construction industry is pointless. They may have significantly more deaths & serious injuries than many other professions, but they also have some of the most stringent laws, rules & policies in place.

[Kayakman]

On 09/10/2022 at 09:06, 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?:

 

Total cheap shot..very poorly done.

[Adelaide Tiger]

I am not at all well versed in class action lawsuits.

So I have a question.  Simply put, if you have a number of plaintiffs represented by one body and they win the case do all of the plaintiffs get an equal share of the award, or, is each plaintiff assessed on what amount they should receive based on for example receiving possible head knocks outside of RL?

[Mattrhino]

On 09/10/2022 at 12:32, Damien said:

It's a minefield. I've seen a couple of interviews with Bobby Goulding too. Jason Netherton isn't too impressed:

 

 

Said that when this was announced last year or so. How on earth could you prove brain damage was caused by Rugby as opposed to his decades worth of heavy drug and alcohol abuse and his history of fighting and drink driving collision.

[Mattrhino]

On 10/10/2022 at 14:21, Saint Toppy said:

Not sure you can say they've done nothing - deliberate head contact is not permitted under the rules & laws of the game. So if players choose to hit an opponent round the head or fails to take proper care & attention when making tackles and make contact then the RFL can't be held responsible for this. They've made the law within the game of no head contact, its the players who break these laws. The only argument really is what more can they do / could they have done to minimise head contact and is it practical & realistic within the nature of the sport being played, and are they 'doing enough' to enforce their own rules.

This is going to be a hugely complex legal case and while this is currently a 'class action' case, I can foresee it probably ending up with individual awards of damages based on an individuals circumstances. Someone like Goudling is going to find it very hard to prove that RL is solely responsible for any of his long term symptoms given he was also a boxer who took hundreds if not thousands of blows to his head through that sport, was a self-confessed alcoholic and drug addict, someone who deliberately used to go out get drunk and cause fights in pubs (god knows how many times he was hit in the head during these fights), and nearly killed himself in a car accident (which included head injury waking up several days later in hospital).

Yeah this is interesting and where it diverts from any NFL comparison. Where players were routinely tackling with the head as a battering ram alot of times aiming it to hit the opponents head. 

Like you said head contact has always been illegal at any level of rugby. 

[RP London]

14 hours ago, Mattrhino said:

Said that when this was announced last year or so. How on earth could you prove brain damage was caused by Rugby as opposed to his decades worth of heavy drug and alcohol abuse and his history of fighting and drink driving collision.

I don't have any legal background bit I do wonder whether this is why a class action lawsuit happens? It's then not an individual thing, maybe the breakdown of the compensation within the class then comes down to the above?