Tackle technique & rules, re: concussion...

[redjonn]

14 hours ago, The Blues Ox said:

Some of the comments on Twitter......Silverwood now claiming the players knew the risks. You are wrong, they didn't know the risks at all. Seen some players speaking up as well but for the moment its the ones who you worry for anyone who listens to their opinions. Also at the moment they are ok because they get to follow protocols where as back in the day you used to get knocked out and you would be back on 5 minutes later if you were ok to get to your feet and in some cases were probably forced to go back on. Is that knowing the risks?

Would you let your sons/daughters play if you knew there was an increased risk of longterm brain injury/damage, I think parents back then may think twice if they knew what we know now. The fake tough guy stuff on Twitter is a bit embarassing.

Not sure of the logic.... just on a specific point as distinct from the general case as I don't know the detail of the legal action.

If the players didn't know the risk (as you state), then surely neither did the admin/authorities. Then their would be no justification point in the legal case.

Surely its that the risks were known but the admin/authorities of the sport didn't do enough to mitigate the risks. By extension the players therefore did know the risks but not enough was done to protect them. 

[fighting irish]

11 hours ago, RP London said:

Quickest win they could have for "taking it seriously"

I just watched the Will Smith film, "concussion".

I'm not sure it's the best place to gather data from, for this argument, but one of the points that struck me was that the researcher (Will Smith) concluded that damage is done by ''sub-concussive'' impacts and it was the cumulative effect which manifests itself as Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy.

I've been surprised by the fact that NFL and Rugby is being challenged in this way, but yet boxing seems to be evading this kind of scrutiny. I found myself wondering how many such knocks (of this nature) a boxer might suffer in a professional career and at (say) 20 punches a round, that's 200 per fight and 6000 or so, in a 30 fight career. Many of which might be glancing blows or (when anticipated by the recipient who moves his head backwards) causing lesser rates of acceleration than if his head was stationary.

Forgive me for this rough and ready estimation (which doesn't include training impacts) but remember our players play 20 odd games a year and almost all our impacts occur with both players running in opposite directions adding their speeds together on impact (without attempts at evading the collision). They may have done high impact collision training 3 or 4 times a week also.  

The first NFL player studied (in the film) had suffered over 70,000 such injuries in his career, many of which were high speed, head on collisions.

So perhaps, boxing is less damaging than our game (god forbid). 

Anyway, the point I wanted to make was, that as well as trying to reduce the most forceful collisions by thinking about changing what constitutes a ''legal tackle'' and improving (extending) recovery periods after injury, we should certainly find ways, (as you rightly suggest) to reduce the total number of impacts and thereby, the damaging cumulative effect of seemingly non-injurious head accelerations during our training sessions. 

 

Edited April 5, 2023 by fighting irish

[RP London]

3 minutes ago, redjonn said:

Not sure of the logic.... just on a specific point as distinct from the general case as I don't know the detail of the legal action.

If the players didn't know the risk (as you state), then surely neither did the admin/authorities. Then their would be no justification point in the legal case.

Surely its that the risks were known but the admin/authorities of the sport didn't do enough to mitigate the risks. By extension the players therefore did know the risks but not enough was done to protect them. 

Thats my reading of it too.. 

The key IMHO is, and has always  been, did they receive the appropriate care for the injuries they had and to the understanding of the causes and risks of head trauma was the science and advice taken to lessen the impact. If Doctors were screaming about concussion leading to mental issues and that 5 days off, no training etc was the absolute way to stop this and clubs/international teams were telling players to play on or train while knowing (important word I think) that they do or could have a concussion etc then they are going to be in a lot of trouble. Equally knowing about subconcussive issue and still running punishment contact sessions etc.. but then how much is that on the organisation and how much on the individual coaches.. 

I get the feeling this has "out of court settlement" written all over it otherwise it could get quite messy for both sides and still find in favour ( to an extent ) for the players as they have definitely been let down in one way or another, its just by how much and by whom.

[RP London]

10 minutes ago, fighting irish said:

I just watched the Will Smith film, "concussion".

I'm not sure it's the best place to gather data from, for this argument, but one of the points that struck me was that the researcher (Will Smith) concluded that damage is done by ''sub-concussive'' impacts and it was the cumulative effect which manifests itself as Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy.

I've been surprised by the fact that NFL and Rugby is being challenged in this way, but yet boxing seems to be evading this kind of scrutiny. I found myself wondering how many such knocks (of this nature) a boxer might suffer in a professional career and at (say) 20 punches a round, that's 200 per fight and 6000 or so, in a 30 fight career. Many of which might be glancing blows or (when anticipated by the recipient who moves his head backwards) causing lesser rates of acceleration than if his head was stationary.

Forgive me for this rough and ready estimation (which doesn't include training impacts) but remember our players play 20 odd games a year and almost all our impacts occur with both players running in opposite directions adding their speeds together on impact (without attempts at evading the collision). They may have done high impact collision training 3 or 4 times a week also.  

The first NFL player studied (in the film) had suffered over 70,000 such injuries in his career, many of which were high speed, head on collisions.

So perhaps, boxing is less damaging than our game (god forbid). 

Anyway, the point I wanted to make was, that as well as trying to reduce the most forceful collisions by thinking about changing what constitutes a ''legal tackle'' and improving (extending) recovery periods after injury, we should certainly find ways, (as you rightly suggest) to reduce the total number of impacts and thereby, the damaging cumulative effect of seemingly non-injurious head accelerations during our training sessions. 

 

That film is really interesting and I agree with your thoughts.. I've wondered about boxing and wonder whether there is something more around "you know the risks" to boxers.. but really I have no idea how that hasnt come under this type of thing either. 

The first interview I saw with Alix Popham he described it brilliant as leaving the outside tap on.. you dont notice the drip do anything, its just a drip of water but over time it will leave a depression in the ground and then it will pool water, that water will freeze and expand and cause more damage, all while the tap is still dripping. He even said the game was fine for the most part its the training.

It really made me think about it and its where I just cannot see a way around training being the biggest change needed. Change the laws of the game, build in a little more leeway but IMHO the nipple/arm pit line seems ok. that allows a slip to still not hit the head, if you do then its a ban, just make players control  it more. But there are always impacts (attack and defence) that rattle you, there is simply hitting the floor that could cause a sub concussive issue with the bounce of your head on the floor etc etc. 

but the key is a game is 80 minutes a week, your involvement in hard impacts in the game is 10-15 potentially?? a lot of running, line speed and slower collisions that are ok.. big impacts its not much. However, in training its high intensity work with constant big collisions for practice.. cut those down and you could cut out 50% of ALL collisions for ALL players instantly. Thats a lot. 

Proper care of injuries is a must, proper punishments for dangerous play is a must (and the RFL have to be strong) but training regulation is vital IMHO 

 

 

 

Disclaimer: i'm not a doctor its just my reading of it using a bit of common sense and what I have read on this. 

[fighting irish]

29 minutes ago, redjonn said:

Not sure of the logic.... just on a specific point as distinct from the general case as I don't know the detail of the legal action.

If the players didn't know the risk (as you state), then surely neither did the admin/authorities. Then their would be no justification point in the legal case.

Surely its that the risks were known but the admin/authorities of the sport didn't do enough to mitigate the risks. By extension the players therefore did know the risks but not enough was done to protect them. 

The danger (if I can use that term in this context) for the game, is that today at least, the game has a duty of care.

If the game was invented today, we would have to have considered the potential risk and conducted a ''risk assessment''. If the risk was estimated as unacceptable then we would have to take steps to reduce the perceived risk to an acceptable level (as far as is reasonably practicable).

Not doing the risk assessment would be seen as negligent. To have done a (poorly thought out) risk assessment and not implemented a ''risk management'' strategy to significantly reduce the risk would also be judged negligent.

The players, voluntary participation would mean (at best/at worst) some share in the responsibility for their injury and as such may reduce any potential claims but would not eliminate the games responsibilities to the ignorant players.

Have we done a risk assessment? When did we do it? How thorough was it? What ''changes'' did it recommend? did we make the players aware of the risks and our recommended risk management strategy? Did we implement the changes? Can we demonstrate that the risk management protocols actually reduced the risks?

This is why these issues end up in court.

How a judge would weigh the relative duties and responsibilities (between player and game) is anybody's guess. Whether the judge will allow some leniency due to the recent emergence of the medical knowledge of CTE (and contrasted by the game being invented over a hundred years ago) remains to be seen.

The best we can do, in the meantime, is to take a very serious look at the risks inherent in our game and based on all available data, come up with a laudable risk management strategy/protocol. 

 

[Dunbar]

On 04/04/2023 at 18:44, The Blues Ox said:

Some of the comments on Twitter......Silverwood now claiming the players knew the risks. You are wrong, they didn't know the risks at all. Seen some players speaking up as well but for the moment its the ones who you worry for anyone who listens to their opinions. Also at the moment they are ok because they get to follow protocols where as back in the day you used to get knocked out and you would be back on 5 minutes later if you were ok to get to your feet and in some cases were probably forced to go back on. Is that knowing the risks?

Would you let your sons/daughters play if you knew there was an increased risk of longterm brain injury/damage, I think parents back then may think twice if they knew what we know now. The fake tough guy stuff on Twitter is a bit embarassing.

I am speaking from a personal view point here, not a legal one.

But the key for me is... no, the players didn't know the risks but did the governing bodies know the risks and hide those risks from the players?

The only time I would blame the RFL or BARLA is if they knew the players were at risk from the long term effects of brain injury and they made a decision to suppress that knowledge. 

Edit: Posted this as I was reading through the thread.  I have now seen the additional replies discussing this.

Edited April 6, 2023 by Dunbar

[del capo]

1 hour ago, Dunbar said:

I am speaking from a personal view point here, not a legal one.

But the key for me is... no, the players didn't know the risks but did the governing bodies know the risks and hide those risks from the players?

The only time I would blame the RFL or BARLA is if they knew the players were at risk from the long term effects of brain injury and they made a decision to suppress that knowledge. 

Edit: Posted this as I was reading through the thread.  I have now seen the additional replies discussing this.

The NFL knew the risks but suppressed them.  Hence the  massive payouts and thereafter adjustments to  ensure a surviving game and no future claims. We simply cannot afford that route.

The rest of the oval ball game had no such  medical info and that will be the major strand of their defence on the in principle argument before if necessary there is a need to look at individuals.

The medical stuff is now coming through but needs to be assimilated for each individual type of oval ball game.

What is certain is that there will be  enforceable directives on contact training , concussion lay offs and on field rule changes.

And all of this will be sooner than you think -2024 season I believe at the latest. Otherwise our game could be gone.....

[Tommygilf]

1. Did the governing bodies have knowledge of the risks of head injuries, specifically pertaining to chances of developing debilitating and life limiting conditions?

2. If they did have the knowledge then did they do enough as was reasonable given the facts at the time about it? 

If the answer to 1 is no, then this case is a non-starter. Even if its a yes, then if the bodies did enough as could be expected (ie punishing high tackles for example) then they still are barking up the wrong tree.

Instinctively I think that proving knowledge from 30+ years ago of a concept that seems to have only really taken hold in the past 10 to 15 years is going to be extremely difficult. I also think that given how much of a village RL is, if the risk was known at all it would be widely known that people were aware of it. It isn't, which suggests to me that it wasn't.

The claim has already quadrupled the sport's insurance premiums though.

[Wakefield Ram]

The past can't be changed but I do think that these relatively young men in their 40s with dementia can't just be abandoned by the sport that damaged them. If it was your son dying and leaving a wife and your grandkids behind, then you'd expect them to be provided for financially.

Going forward there has to be a reduction in contact training, pro boxing has annual brain scans, the RFL should do some screening of at least some players to get an idea of the extent of the problem. They could do that now but my guess is they are scared what it might show up.

And any contact with the head and neck and players running leading with their forearm needs to be stamped out. Sending players off for high tackles isn't spoiling the game, high tackles spoil the game.

[Copa]

On 05/04/2023 at 19:07, fighting irish said:

I just watched the Will Smith film, "concussion".

I'm not sure it's the best place to gather data from, for this argument, but one of the points that struck me was that the researcher (Will Smith) concluded that damage is done by ''sub-concussive'' impacts and it was the cumulative effect which manifests itself as Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy.

I've been surprised by the fact that NFL and Rugby is being challenged in this way, but yet boxing seems to be evading this kind of scrutiny. I found myself wondering how many such knocks (of this nature) a boxer might suffer in a professional career and at (say) 20 punches a round, that's 200 per fight and 6000 or so, in a 30 fight career. Many of which might be glancing blows or (when anticipated by the recipient who moves his head backwards) causing lesser rates of acceleration than if his head was stationary.

Forgive me for this rough and ready estimation (which doesn't include training impacts) but remember our players play 20 odd games a year and almost all our impacts occur with both players running in opposite directions adding their speeds together on impact (without attempts at evading the collision). They may have done high impact collision training 3 or 4 times a week also.  

The first NFL player studied (in the film) had suffered over 70,000 such injuries in his career, many of which were high speed, head on collisions.

So perhaps, boxing is less damaging than our game (god forbid). 

Anyway, the point I wanted to make was, that as well as trying to reduce the most forceful collisions by thinking about changing what constitutes a ''legal tackle'' and improving (extending) recovery periods after injury, we should certainly find ways, (as you rightly suggest) to reduce the total number of impacts and thereby, the damaging cumulative effect of seemingly non-injurious head accelerations during our training sessions. 

 

I played high school varsity football in the US and we trained 2 hours a day five days a week after school during season and also had a weights session every day during the school day as one of our “classes”. Some schools trained a lot more than that.

We would smash our helmets into other players all the time. There was no concern at all for our brain health.. they didn’t care at all and we were just high school students.

While there are some people who will change processes based on the science as it comes through, there are plenty of others who will only change processes under the threat of lawsuits.

It will be interesting to see how it all develops within rugby league.

[fighting irish]

2 hours ago, Copa said:

I played high school varsity football in the US and we trained 2 hours a day five days a week after school during season and also had a weights session every day during the school day as one of our “classes”. Some schools trained a lot more than that.

We would smash our helmets into other players all the time. There was no concern at all for our brain health.. they didn’t care at all and we were just high school students.

While there are some people who will change processes based on the science as it comes through, there are plenty of others who will only change processes under the threat of lawsuits.

It will be interesting to see how it all develops within rugby league.

Yes I'm sure that is the case.

The jaw dropping revelation in the film, was that the NFL knew all along that the game was causing brain damage but hushed it up, so as to maintain the gladiatorial spectacle.

Gus Gould springs to mind as an example of the games NFL-like apologists, (often arguing that some of the games biggest hits, cause no real harm, so we have no need to change).

I don't think the RFL were aware and so I assume any compensation claims will be modified (slightly at least) on that basis.

We'll have to wait and see. 

Edited April 7, 2023 by fighting irish

[The Blues Ox]

3 hours ago, Wakefield Ram said:

The past can't be changed but I do think that these relatively young men in their 40s with dementia can't just be abandoned by the sport that damaged them. If it was your son dying and leaving a wife and your grandkids behind, then you'd expect them to be provided for financially.

I think thats the big thing regarding some of the comments on Twitter, I know a lot of the players that are posting the comments don't have a lot of braincells between them but their reaction seems to be on the idea that these players are somehow going to get rich by suing the sport that they love which could not be further from the truth and like one comment I saw, this money if they were to see any of it for some of them will simply provide care for them as they live out a very short and poor quality of life. For me those people posting those comments are a whole lot lower than the people who are bringing this action.

[Wakefield Ram]

8 hours ago, The Blues Ox said:

I think thats the big thing regarding some of the comments on Twitter, I know a lot of the players that are posting the comments don't have a lot of braincells between them but their reaction seems to be on the idea that these players are somehow going to get rich by suing the sport that they love which could not be further from the truth and like one comment I saw, this money if they were to see any of it for some of them will simply provide care for them as they live out a very short and poor quality of life. For me those people posting those comments are a whole lot lower than the people who are bringing this action.

I bet these same people in the same circumstances would be the first to take the money

[tim2]

9 hours ago, The Blues Ox said:

I think thats the big thing regarding some of the comments on Twitter, I know a lot of the players that are posting the comments don't have a lot of braincells between them but their reaction seems to be on the idea that these players are somehow going to get rich by suing the sport that they love which could not be further from the truth and like one comment I saw, this money if they were to see any of it for some of them will simply provide care for them as they live out a very short and poor quality of life. For me those people posting those comments are a whole lot lower than the people who are bringing this action.

"I'm 75 and played when you could tackle round the hed and be unlucky if you gave away a penalty and I'm OK. Also, my mum's got dementia and she never played"

That kind of thing? Grim, isn't it.

[RP London]

On 07/04/2023 at 12:56, The Blues Ox said:

I think thats the big thing regarding some of the comments on Twitter, I know a lot of the players that are posting the comments don't have a lot of braincells between them but their reaction seems to be on the idea that these players are somehow going to get rich by suing the sport that they love which could not be further from the truth and like one comment I saw, this money if they were to see any of it for some of them will simply provide care for them as they live out a very short and poor quality of life. For me those people posting those comments are a whole lot lower than the people who are bringing this action.

Pay for care, pay for adapting the house, pay for the family while they can't earn.. Will life insurance pay out? Do they have life insurance? Etc etc.. so many costs..

So many of the comments from the explayers are about making the game take note and change rather than the money they might get, which I am sure that will help with a weight off their minds, but they want it safer for the kids (sometimes their own kids) that are playing now... they are not selfish people, they are not out for a quick buck..

people who are saying that IMHO say more about themselves than anything else and it shows they have not read or watched any of the numerous news articles/interviews that there have been. 

Edited April 9, 2023 by RP London

[Gavin Harrison]

It seems the 'problem' has gone away in rugby league.

Only explanation for hits like that by Singleton vs Saints to be deemed only a penalty.

There have been others, but that's the latest one I've seen.