Nick Fozzard getting dragged on Twitter

[The Daddy]

Some league fans have dug up some old tweets and videos of Nick Fozzard playing.

Let's just say some of those tweets are *cough* contradictory to the cause of his legal case. 

Not sure why they've suddenly been brought up today but RL twitter has decided to go in on Fozzard. 

Fair or unfair?

[The Daddy]

 

[RigbyLuger]

If he hadn't put them into the public domain, he wouldn't have been criticised for the content of them, especially glorying violent acts which could contribute to the issues he is suing over.)

[PREPOSTEROUS]

Fozzard was one of the regulars whos actions could cause such a condition hes now suing the game over. The peopel pointing out his double standards are quite right to do so. As others have said, whatever he gets from this his victim's should sue him. 

[Jughead]

He’s gone public with joining the court case against the sport given the results of brain scans in retirement so therefore, people have dug up footage of him during his playing days as a way of disparaging his decision to do what he’s doing. 

I liked Fozzard in his two stints at Saints, he was a good player in a good side and seemed like a good man too. I wish him the best in his cause. 

Edited April 13, 2023 by Jughead

[Damien]

He's not helping himself either with his current and past comments, in some of which he is actually laughing about tackles like this:

 

[Damien]

Like really:

 

[Dunbar]

4 minutes ago, Damien said:

Like really:

 

This tweet was posted as a response to his tweet describing the rationale to join the claim and his response is "If we had been told the facts that were known and available at that time that were withheld from us intentionally or otherwise - I’m sure we would all have changed our styles of play somewhat".

But im sorry, this doesnt stack up.  You cannot say that you were ok to inflict short term physical harm on an opponent but you would have changed your behaviour if you were aware of long term harm.  Harm is harm.

It's hard to revel in living outside the laws of the sport and saying you deliberately hurt someone and then claim innocence when it comes to consequences. 

[GUBRATS]

Fozard was one of the few players who could inflict harm WITH the ball , regularily lead with the elbow 

 

[Damien]

11 hours ago, Dunbar said:

This tweet was posted as a response to his tweet describing the rationale to join the claim and his response is "If we had been told the facts that were known and available at that time that were withheld from us intentionally or otherwise - I’m sure we would all have changed our styles of play somewhat".

But im sorry, this doesnt stack up.  You cannot say that you were ok to inflict short term physical harm on an opponent but you would have changed your behaviour if you were aware of long term harm.  Harm is harm.

It's hard to revel in living outside the laws of the sport and saying you deliberately hurt someone and then claim innocence when it comes to consequences. 

Absolutely, I couldn't have put it better myself. I think it's very debatable how much the RFL knew with regards to concussion and if they were any better informed than players. For quite a long time the RFL have certainly made it known that they have followed medical advice regarding concussion protocols. It is absolutely not debatable that attacks to the head could cause serious injury and things like a broken jaw. Fozzard admits he did this knowing the consequences. Based on that on reading his past tweets he just leaves himself wide open to be sued himself:

Edited April 14, 2023 by Damien

[DI Keith Fowler]

20 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

Fozard was one of the few players who could inflict harm WITH the ball , regularily lead with the elbow 

 

Absolutely hated his big padded arm thing, used to wince when he ran it in. 

[Hull Kingston Bronco]

1 hour ago, Jughead said:

He’s gone public with joining the court case against the sport given the results of brain scans in retirement so therefore, people have dug up footage of him during his playing days as a way of disparaging his decision to do what he’s doing. 

I liked Fozzard in his two stints at Saints, he was a good player in a good side and seemed like a good man too. I wish him the best in his cause. 

He is putting his own financial interests ahead of the sport. Specifically the community game, and youth pathways:  

People have quite rightly reminded him of his previous actions and statements. The bloke is probably the worst hypocrite amongst a pretty dubious group of claimants, and that’s saying something. 

[Jughead]

21 minutes ago, Hull Kingston Bronco said:

He is putting his own financial interests ahead of the sport. Specifically the community game, and youth pathways:  

People have quite rightly reminded him of his previous actions and statements. The bloke is probably the worst hypocrite amongst a pretty dubious group of claimants, and that’s saying something. 

Of course he is, the game isn’t going to pay for any care he may require in the future or keep a roof over his kids’ head. Whether the way he’s going about paying for the above is ethical or the right thing to do is questionable. 

Attitudes to head injuries and treatment of head injuries was very different in Fozzard’s era but it remains naive to think that players weren’t aware of the risk of injury, if not the long term effects of such injury. 

[DACS]

I won't have a dig at him for his previous attitude - it was completely widespread in the game across many fans and players (never really a fan of the biff myself though). However, if I was defending a case he brought then those posts would be front and centre. It wouldn't be too hard to get a lot of former players to admit they did and thought the same - i.e. they were utterly careless as to the potential damage they did to opponents. It would be almost impossible to argue that if you were quite happy to concuss someone/break a jaw or nose that you would have given a second thought to that same person facing life-changing brain injuries twenty or thirty years later.

More broadly, I'm still not quite sure what financial outcome those suing RL expect. 

I agree that the game should help as much as it can but the reality is the sport's basically brassic in England. Most clubs can't even afford to pay current players without owners dumping in cash, let alone pay former players (not to mention changes in ownership and how that may cloud liabilities). Could you force liabilities across the sport on to individual clubs anyway, or would players have to sue individual clubs as their employers?

Any insurance the game had from the days even Fozzard played would have long expired. I suspect it just wouldn't cover any long-term eventualities (insurance companies are very careful round that sort of thing) and in any event, who was insuring the game, and when?  Going after insurance claims will be harder than going after the sport as insurance companies deal with this sort of thing all the time, and are have the money to out-spend any claimants to avoid setting precedents.

Even if you wound up the game and forced it to sell all its assets, how much would you make? Some clubs own their own grounds, but a lot don't. The ones that are owned would be heavily debt financed so the net return if you sold them wouldn't be much, especially when spread across potentially hundreds of players.

The only outcome that would seem to make sense for former players is some form of out-of-court settlement involving the league putting money into a fund to help where it can. But if they think they're going to get enough money to  pay for support workers for years (or similar costs) they are probably deluding themselves (or have been deluded by lawyers).

The risk is that the legal costs could cause a lot of damage to a sport like RL, and the only happy people end up being lawyers.

Edited April 14, 2023 by DACS

[bobbruce]

I’ve said this before what these players don’t realise is the end game here once the insurance money runs out is players suing clubs. Then finally players suing players for bad tackles and when you look at the list of players involved in the law suit that won’t end well for a lot of them. 

[Hull Kingston Bronco]

10 hours ago, Jughead said:

Of course he is, the game isn’t going to pay for any care he may require in the future or keep a roof over his kids’ head. Whether the way he’s going about paying for the above is ethical or the right thing to do is questionable. 

Attitudes to head injuries and treatment of head injuries was very different in Fozzard’s era but it remains naive to think that players weren’t aware of the risk of injury, if not the long term effects of such injury. 

We may agree then, my bad I was reacting to you wishing him the best in his cause. I don't, but perhaps I misunderstood what you meant. I wish him the best in his health situation, I've nothing but sympathy for him and his family, but I can't support his cause as it has the potential to kill the community game. Even if the professional game may survive in the short term, one follows the other in the end.

My view is players knew the risks to the same extent as governing bodies. Back then that was that clearly knocks to the head aren't great for your health, but we didn't understand how much well enough in order to take more mitigating action than we did at the time. Now we know more, we do, and will do more as we understand more.

It's unreasonable for Fozzard and others to act as if the RFL had some sort of special insight, perhaps with loads of evidence hidden in a secret room in Red Hall behind a locked door. It is not the wider sports' fault what has happened to him, any more than it is his "fault". 

I'm sorry he has the problems he has, but I don't think the sport should be destroyed for him to get better finances (with lawyers extracting their 30% along the way)

 

[Jughead]

1 hour ago, Hull Kingston Bronco said:

We may agree then, my bad I was reacting to you wishing him the best in his cause. I don't, but perhaps I misunderstood what you meant. I wish him the best in his health situation, I've nothing but sympathy for him and his family, but I can't support his cause as it has the potential to kill the community game. Even if the professional game may survive in the short term, one follows the other in the end.

My view is players knew the risks to the same extent as governing bodies. Back then that was that clearly knocks to the head aren't great for your health, but we didn't understand how much well enough in order to take more mitigating action than we did at the time. Now we know more, we do, and will do more as we understand more.

It's unreasonable for Fozzard and others to act as if the RFL had some sort of special insight, perhaps with loads of evidence hidden in a secret room in Red Hall behind a locked door. It is not the wider sports' fault what has happened to him, any more than it is his "fault". 

I'm sorry he has the problems he has, but I don't think the sport should be destroyed for him to get better finances (with lawyers extracting their 30% along the way)

 

I do wish him the best. It’s his prerogative to do what he feels is necessary and I wish him the best, though that doesn’t necessarily mean I agree with his decision. 

In this instance, I do actually hope rugby league and union work together on this. I’m off to wash my mouth out. 

[The Blues Ox]

12 hours ago, Hull Kingston Bronco said:

He is putting his own financial interests ahead of the sport. Specifically the community game, and youth pathways:  

People have quite rightly reminded him of his previous actions and statements. The bloke is probably the worst hypocrite amongst a pretty dubious group of claimants, and that’s saying something. 

As has been mentioned the money will come from insurance companies rather than directly out of the game but as someone who has been heavily involved with the community game its laughable that people think the RFL actually do that much for the community game. 

12 hours ago, Jughead said:

Of course he is, the game isn’t going to pay for any care he may require in the future or keep a roof over his kids’ head. Whether the way he’s going about paying for the above is ethical or the right thing to do is questionable. 

Attitudes to head injuries and treatment of head injuries was very different in Fozzard’s era but it remains naive to think that players weren’t aware of the risk of injury, if not the long term effects of such injury. 

I keep seeing this - the players were aware of the risks. Were they? I consider myself not to be stupid but back when I played I honestly didn't have a clue regarding head injuries or anything of the sort. We used to think it were quite funny if someone got a big shot and was wobbling about. Did the pro players know that much more? I find it hard to believe that the RFL at some point had not at least looked in to CTE or other longterm effects of repeated head injuries. If they had and that can be proven then there is a good chance the players have a case, if they havn't then that in my opinion is naive and again the players have a case.

I think people should get off their backs. They are highly unlikely to have made a living off the game to the point where they have no financial responsibilities. For most of them this is about securing their financial future to the point that their families can provide care for them in what will be for some of them a slow, painful, and horible end to their lives. They are not trying to ruin the game, if anything you could argue that by doing this they could be helping the game become safer. The problem with that is that some people don't want a safer game because it removes some of the excitment.

[RigbyLuger]

The problem in this case is that it's easy to see him talk about deliberately hitting people in the head, and you assume anyone his age would be aware of issues in boxing from punching in the head.

[Vyvyan]

Might this case, if successful,  open a can of worms?  Could it make insurance more expensive for current players and clubs?

[gingerjon]

14 minutes ago, RigbyLuger said:

The problem in this case is that it's easy to see him talk about deliberately hitting people in the head, and you assume anyone his age would be aware of issues in boxing from punching in the head.

What did the game do to stop him and others hitting and being hit on the head?

Was that enough given what they knew, or should have known, at the time?

[phiggins]

14 hours ago, Dunbar said:

This tweet was posted as a response to his tweet describing the rationale to join the claim and his response is "If we had been told the facts that were known and available at that time that were withheld from us intentionally or otherwise - I’m sure we would all have changed our styles of play somewhat".

But im sorry, this doesnt stack up.  You cannot say that you were ok to inflict short term physical harm on an opponent but you would have changed your behaviour if you were aware of long term harm.  Harm is harm.

It's hard to revel in living outside the laws of the sport and saying you deliberately hurt someone and then claim innocence when it comes to consequences. 

It's a very bizarre take. If he'd known the long term effects, he wouldn't have deliberately broken the rules? So he wants to sue the governing body for merely setting the rules and not convincing him to follow them?

I'd have more sympathy for a half back claiming that they didn't have enough protection back in the day, but even then, I'm not sure what risks the RFL are supposed to have been aware of at the time, that players weren't.

[Jughead]

26 minutes ago, The Blues Ox said:

As has been mentioned the money will come from insurance companies rather than directly out of the game but as someone who has been heavily involved with the community game its laughable that people think the RFL actually do that much for the community game. 

I keep seeing this - the players were aware of the risks. Were they? I consider myself not to be stupid but back when I played I honestly didn't have a clue regarding head injuries or anything of the sort. We used to think it were quite funny if someone got a big shot and was wobbling about. Did the pro players know that much more? I find it hard to believe that the RFL at some point had not at least looked in to CTE or other longterm effects of repeated head injuries. If they had and that can be proven then there is a good chance the players have a case, if they havn't then that in my opinion is naive and again the players have a case.

I think people should get off their backs. They are highly unlikely to have made a living off the game to the point where they have no financial responsibilities. For most of them this is about securing their financial future to the point that their families can provide care for them in what will be for some of them a slow, painful, and horible end to their lives. They are not trying to ruin the game, if anything you could argue that by doing this they could be helping the game become safer. The problem with that is that some people don't want a safer game because it removes some of the excitment.

That’s a good point. I don’t think we knew all of the effects of concussions or the long term effects of multiple head injuries. It was almost a badge of honour seeing players make a tackle, come off worse, wobble back to the defensive line and then carry on for the rest of the game. Clubs have always had physios and doctors in my era of following the sport, I don’t know if they knew more but were overruled by clubs, coaches and players, I suppose that’s part of what will be investigated and dissected.

 

[The Blues Ox]

https://www.channel4.com/news/sporting-stars-deaths-raise-concussion-fears

That article is over ten years old and studies in to CTE had been going on for a long time before that. The main focus of peoples anger seems to be on these players trying to pull a fast one and get rich quick but I bet you could bet good money on the number of players showing advanced signs of CTE to increase rapidly over the next 10 or 20 years before those numbers start to reduce because of protocols that are now been brought in. 

The current players speaking out seem to be in the camp of "wouldn't change anything if I had a choice" but I wonder if they will have the same opinion if any of them, god forbid, end up in their 40's and 50's and their own sons and daughters don't recognise them for the people they use to be. In my opinion its a lot braver for these people to come out and speak out about this rather than those current players who want to act all tough. Those are the weak ones.

[Hull Kingston Bronco]

1 hour ago, The Blues Ox said:

As has been mentioned the money will come from insurance companies rather than directly out of the game but as someone who has been heavily involved with the community game its laughable that people think the RFL actually do that much for the community game. 

The money will come from the community game, in terms of the future insurance costs as a result of this action. That's irrespective of whether the RFL do or don't do enough to support the community game. Super League teams will be able to afford the insurance. Lower leagues, amateur teams and other youth set-ups will not. That will be the direct financial consequences of this action. It has the potential to absolutely devastate the sport.

If players choose to pursue their own financial self-interest at the expense of the sport that provided them so many positives to be balanced alongside their challenges now, as well as to be balanced with their own responsibility for their own actions and choices, then I reckon it's perfectly reasonable to call that out for what it is.

Especially in the case of Fozzard, who was a notably violent player, and who has celebrated his and others' violence since (as the dredging of his past tweets has shown). I watched Ali on Parkinson when I was a kid, it's not rocket science to know that head injuries and concussions can have a lasting impact.

Players knew as much as the governing body did at the time, which is the bar I set for whether the RFL are worthy of being sued by such players. We all know more now, but I don't think it is reasonable to sue the RFL for our shared ignorance in the past. These men were adults, making choices.