Legal action confirmed

[Wakefield Ram]

18 minutes ago, Saint Toppy said:

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.

 

As another has posted, whilst the post-concussion side has improved the RFL has done nothing to mitigate it happening. No limit on contact training, the clampdown on high tackles abandoned after a few weeks and no brain scans like in boxing.

If the players win damages, the winners are also going to be the families of these players who will be losing their dads and husbands to a very premature death preceded by years of mental deterioration. 

If it was your son, would you just tell his widow and kids "ah well it was a man's game" ? 

The game went fully pro 1995, so the players who had a 10 year career retired in 2005 are now mid/late 40s. There will be an increasing number of players for roughly next 10 years or so and let's hope the concussion protocols reduce the number of these cases.

But the RFL and the game need to put in preventative measures now.

[Wakefield Ram]

7 minutes ago, RP London said:

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"). 

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.

Maybe we need some legal expertise here. People who suffered from asbestosis claimed compensation and not sure there was medical advice in 60s/70s on it. Likewise with miners and lung disease. 

Not sure that the RFL could argue that players suffering neurological effects after repeated brain traumas was entirely unforeseeable. Or players being coerced into playing or being left on the field after head injury was not negligent.

Unless the players are funding this action, then suspect the lawyers must think they have a good chance of winning to take 75 clients on.

[RP London]

13 minutes ago, Wakefield Ram said:

Maybe we need some legal expertise here. People who suffered from asbestosis claimed compensation and not sure there was medical advice in 60s/70s on it. Likewise with miners and lung disease. 

Not sure that the RFL could argue that players suffering neurological effects after repeated brain traumas was entirely unforeseeable. Or players being coerced into playing or being left on the field after head injury was not negligent.

Unless the players are funding this action, then suspect the lawyers must think they have a good chance of winning to take 75 clients on.

Oh i'm not saying that they arent going to win but just what I understand they would need to prove to do so. I'm simply going on what i have seen/heard throughout the Union one when it has been brought up. There are also levels of winning and levels of being wrong.. yes they knew there was an issue and they did "some" of what they needed to means a win but not so big etc. 

Dont know anything about the cases of asbestosis or the miners to be honest so cant comment. 

[Wakefield Ram]

Worth a read from a former medical advisor to World Rugby (Union) who's been warning of this for 10 years. And the HIA assessment is worthless.

https://www.progressiverugby.com/media/rugbys-concussion-protocol-branded-a-joke

[Saint Toppy]

27 minutes ago, Wakefield Ram said:

As another has posted, whilst the post-concussion side has improved the RFL has done nothing to mitigate it happening. No limit on contact training, the clampdown on high tackles abandoned after a few weeks and no brain scans like in boxing.

 

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).

[Madrileño]

59 minutes ago, RP London said:

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 

 

Do you have any evidence for this please? It sounds wrong to me.

The NFL have now enforced the mandatory wearing of Guardian caps in practice sessions, and these look very much like rugby headgear. They are soft shell and the NFL quotes research that they lessen impacts by up to 33 per cent.

Could you point me to where it is proven that rugby headgear does nothing to prevent brain injuries from occurring please? It seems to be in direct contradiction to what the NFL are saying. 

[RugbyLeagueGeek]

11 minutes ago, Madrileño said:

The NFL have now enforced the mandatory wearing of Guardian caps in practice sessions, and these look very much like rugby headgear. They are soft shell and the NFL quotes research that they lessen impacts by up to 33 per cent.

But is that compared to helmets? In which case a Guardian cap (dunno what that is) is presumably a reduction on the impact associated with getting hit with a helmet?

[RP London]

17 minutes ago, Madrileño said:

Do you have any evidence for this please? It sounds wrong to me.

The NFL have now enforced the mandatory wearing of Guardian caps in practice sessions, and these look very much like rugby headgear. They are soft shell and the NFL quotes research that they lessen impacts by up to 33 per cent.

Could you point me to where it is proven that rugby headgear does nothing to prevent brain injuries from occurring please? It seems to be in direct contradiction to what the NFL are saying. 

On every single RFU coaching coarse this is told to us, it has also been mentioned in almost every article i have ready about this. I'd go as far as to say it was common knowledge but I dont mean that to be an insult. 

https://www.brain-injury-law-center.com/blog/scrum-caps-rugby/#:~:text=Do Scrum Caps Prevent Concussions,no significant protection against concussions.

Centurion Rugby who make scrumcaps have on their website: Scrum caps & headguards - are designed to protect the head and ears from scrapes, cuts, abrasions and cauliflower ear. Scrum caps are good for reducing bleeding head wounds but they are NOT designed to prevent concussion, a common misconception. There is no evidence that scrum caps help with concussion and they should not be worn for this purpose alone.

From Rugby World magazine in March 2022 https://www.rugbyworld.com/featured/brain-injuries-in-rugby-what-are-the-myths-138371 in which it states "Scrum caps have a demonstrative effect on reducing the risk of lacerations, cauliflower ears and other soft-tissue injuries. However, there is no evidence that any headgear can protect against sub-concussive and concussive blows."

[Gav Wilson]

25 minutes ago, Madrileño said:

Do you have any evidence for this please? It sounds wrong to me.

The NFL have now enforced the mandatory wearing of Guardian caps in practice sessions, and these look very much like rugby headgear. They are soft shell and the NFL quotes research that they lessen impacts by up to 33 per cent.

Could you point me to where it is proven that rugby headgear does nothing to prevent brain injuries from occurring please? It seems to be in direct contradiction to what the NFL are saying. 

"Several studies found no difference in concussion rates between players who did and did not wear scrum caps."

[Bobby123]

On 09/10/2022 at 13:48, 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. 

Has anyone taken into account the amateur game?.

[Wakefield Ram]

40 minutes ago, 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).

I'd say it's around the enforcement of the laws and the RFL is responsible for that. This season's attempt to clampdown on high tackles was similar to what RFU did a few years ago. The difference is RFU stuck to their guns and the RFL caved in. How many head contacts actually get penalised? Or sent off? A weakly enforced law isn't much of a deterrent.

In RU, which I ref, every high tackle starts at a red card and then you mitigate it down as appropriate. None of the players are clamouring for more leniency on head tackles.

In RL, it's almost the opposite.

[Gav Wilson]

2 minutes ago, Wakefield Ram said:

I'd say it's around the enforcement of the laws and the RFL is responsible for that. This season's attempt to clampdown on high tackles was similar to what RFU did a few years ago. The difference is RFU stuck to their guns and the RFL caved in. How many head contacts actually get penalised? Or sent off? A weakly enforced law isn't much of a deterrent.

In RU, which I ref, every high tackle starts at a red card and then you mitigate it down as appropriate. None of the players are clamouring for more leniency on head tackles.

In RL, it's almost the opposite.

I see you haven't paid any attention at all to the Match Review Panel this year.

[RP London]

36 minutes ago, Madrileño said:

Do you have any evidence for this please? It sounds wrong to me.

The NFL have now enforced the mandatory wearing of Guardian caps in practice sessions, and these look very much like rugby headgear. They are soft shell and the NFL quotes research that they lessen impacts by up to 33 per cent.

Could you point me to where it is proven that rugby headgear does nothing to prevent brain injuries from occurring please? It seems to be in direct contradiction to what the NFL are saying. 

Done a quick bit of research on the Guardian Cap and basically, by what I can see, it looks like a scrum cap put on top of a helmet. This is now into "field testing" so they are not 100% sure what the impact would be. But one of the major issues in the NFL is helmet on helmet collisions and this is designed to lessen the impact by 10% if one person is wearing one and 20% if 2 are. However, this does not solve the issue around the subconcussive injury which is the "sponge in a bottle" type injury where the brain bounces around in the head. This is mostly caused by the "whiplash" style issue when the head snaps back or to one side.. If their head hits the ground the brain will still hit the skull and concussion can still occur basically.. what they are trying to do is lessen the impact of the helmet to helmet which is a good aim but tackle technique would probably be more effective to be fair.. which is why Rugby tends to say they arent so much use IMHO

[Wakefield Ram]

6 minutes ago, Gav Wilson said:

I see you haven't paid any attention at all to the Match Review Panel this year.

They are just the bad ones. And all the cases that don't get penalised? Or just end in a penalty? Or maybe a yellow card? Not to mention players leading with their forearm by with their ball-carrying arm (specifically outlawed by RU).  It's the repeated blows to the head which mount up. 

The early season clampdown on high tackles showed the true number of head tackles. 

[Madrileño]

27 minutes ago, RP London said:

On every single RFU coaching coarse this is told to us, it has also been mentioned in almost every article i have ready about this. I'd go as far as to say it was common knowledge but I dont mean that to be an insult. 

https://www.brain-injury-law-center.com/blog/scrum-caps-rugby/#:~:text=Do Scrum Caps Prevent Concussions,no significant protection against concussions. 

Thanks.

I know nothing about RFU coaching courses, so it definitely isn't common knowledge to me.

I was more thinking about League than union, but thanks for clarification.

 

[burningmuscles]

1 hour ago, RP London said:

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. 

 

4 hours ago, Impartial Observer said:

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

 

4 hours 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.

Genuinely didn't know. Thanks people!

It's amazing how many things are counter intuitive. 
 

[RP London]

3 minutes ago, Madrileño said:

Thanks.

I know nothing about RFU coaching courses, so it definitely isn't common knowledge to me.

I was more thinking about League than union, but thanks for clarification.

 

Same arguments go through both really when you look at what they describe, its been a while since i did my RFL coaching courses so cant remember if anything was said then. 

[The Future is League]

How ironic that one of the most notorious head hunters, Bobby Goulding of the Super League Era is suing the RFL. Be careful Bobby some of the players who you deliberate hit around the head might sur you

[Gomersall]

The NFL don’t seem much better than RL despite being the most high profile and richest football code in the world.

https://www.bbc.com/sport/american-football/63183497

[Gomersall]

The stat the really stands out for me is that James Graham was concussed on average every four games

[JohnM]

Again referring to the work done by Allyson Pollock, though it mainly relates to young players. 

https://allysonpollock.com/?page_id=3909

 

[RP London]

19 minutes ago, Gomersall said:

The NFL don’t seem much better than RL despite being the most high profile and richest football code in the world.

https://www.bbc.com/sport/american-football/63183497

That was embarrassing and tough to watch.... just shows that if you leave it up to individuals with skin in the game it goes a bit wrong. This week Teddy Bridgwater (Tua's backup) went through the protocol and passed but an "independent observer" saw him stumble so they didnt give him his helmet back (when they go to the protocol they take your helmet, you cannot play without your helmet and they only give it back when you are cleared to play). seems they are now going to the extra extreme, 3rd choice QB then plays and they lose... will be interesting to see how long this hard stance lasts, if it was RL it would be about a week because "we aren't seeing the best players".. with the NFL maybe they'll hold strong, they have done before. 

On the "we arent seeing the best players" argument.. Brady was never meant to be a starting QB, drafted in the 6th round to sit behind Drew Bledsoe who had taken New England to 2 super bowls. Bledsoe gets injured and Brady steps in and the rest is history..... sometimes you need bans/injuries to give that once in a generation talent the chance, the luck, that everyone needs.. 

[Gomersall]

15 minutes ago, RP London said:

That was embarrassing and tough to watch.... just shows that if you leave it up to individuals with skin in the game it goes a bit wrong. This week Teddy Bridgwater (Tua's backup) went through the protocol and passed but an "independent observer" saw him stumble so they didnt give him his helmet back (when they go to the protocol they take your helmet, you cannot play without your helmet and they only give it back when you are cleared to play). seems they are now going to the extra extreme, 3rd choice QB then plays and they lose... will be interesting to see how long this hard stance lasts, if it was RL it would be about a week because "we aren't seeing the best players".. with the NFL maybe they'll hold strong, they have done before. 

On the "we arent seeing the best players" argument.. Brady was never meant to be a starting QB, drafted in the 6th round to sit behind Drew Bledsoe who had taken New England to 2 super bowls. Bledsoe gets injured and Brady steps in and the rest is history..... sometimes you need bans/injuries to give that once in a generation talent the chance, the luck, that everyone needs.. 

I’ll have to bow to your greater NFL knowledge. 

[RP London]

43 minutes ago, Gomersall said:

I’ll have to bow to your greater NFL knowledge. 

Its not brilliant by any means.. 

They made a proper balls of it at the beginning but they have very very quickly fixed it by the sounds of it... but they have had to put something like a billion $ into a fund to help with head injuries once players have retired so i bet that makes you move swiftly!

[Gomersall]

2 minutes ago, RP London said:

Its not brilliant by any means.. 

They made a proper balls of it at the beginning but they have very very quickly fixed it by the sounds of it... but they have had to put something like a billion $ into a fund to help with head injuries once players have retired so i bet that makes you move swiftly!

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.