Nick Fozzard getting dragged on Twitter

[gingerjon]

8 hours ago, DACS said:

I'm interested in the idea that keeps being put up here that insurers will supposedly pay any compensation for players who haven't played for years (in some cases 30 years).

No doubt the RFL and clubs have general liability insurance, and cover for medical costs relating to current players. But what cover would RL (or any sport) have relating to ex players? They may have some  but if they do the cover will be capped out - no insurer would accept an open-ended risk. 

I just can't see any pot of gold through insurance. 

Depends on the terms of the insurance but - and so many variables to get to this point - if the RFL are deemed liable and a financial requirement imposed then they will need to find that money. And if the insurance doesn't cover it then they will still need to find that money.

[Damien]

1 hour ago, gingerjon said:

Depends on the terms of the insurance but - and so many variables to get to this point - if the RFL are deemed liable and a financial requirement imposed then they will need to find that money. And if the insurance doesn't cover it then they will still need to find that money.

At the end of the day the RFL doesn't have the money. If any case is successful and proves costly, and if insurance doesn't cover it, then all that would happen is the RFL collapses and the claimants get no money. There are parallels here with the British Athletics Federation collapse in 1999 over the Diane Modahl case and which was simply succeeded by UK Athletics.

[Live after death]

This “we didn’t know smacking people in the head was dangerous” excuse us pathetic. I know people in thier early 50’s who swear they didn’t know smoking was bad for them when they started in the 80’s 

ignorance is no excuse. Fozzard was a thug and admits it, go get stuffed for me and Goulding. As others have said i hope some off the players he bragged about hitting counter sue him.

Who’s next Toa Koa Love, Brad Hepi, Brendan Tuuta. 

[bobbruce]

25 minutes ago, Live after death said:

This “we didn’t know smacking people in the head was dangerous” excuse us pathetic. I know people in thier early 50’s who swear they didn’t know smoking was bad for them when they started in the 80’s 

ignorance is no excuse. Fozzard was a thug and admits it, go get stuffed for me and Goulding. As others have said i hope some off the players he bragged about hitting counter sue him.

Who’s next Toa Koa Love, Brad Hepi, Brendan Tuuta. 

I can’t wait for Ben Flower to get his claim in. 

[gingerjon]

1 hour ago, Damien said:

At the end of the day the RFL doesn't have the money. 

This is certainly true.

It's why I'm slightly more worried about the immediate resource cost in defending the case properly than in what happens after.

[RigbyLuger]

This will end well...

 

 

[Tommygilf]

5 minutes ago, RigbyLuger said:

This will end well...

 

 

Gwon degsy

[GeordieSaint]

Is this true - bottom bit about Roach?

 

[Tommygilf]

This is becoming even more clearly a case of classic no win no fee insurance claim legals.

Imagine still playing RL whilst claiming it causes brain damage

[gingerjon]

9 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

This is becoming even more clearly a case of classic no win no fee insurance claim legals.

Imagine still playing RL whilst claiming it causes brain damage

Yes, someone would need to have been hit really hard on the head to think that that was okay.

Hang on ...

[Dunbar]

1 hour ago, gingerjon said:

Yes, someone would need to have been hit really hard on the head to think that that was okay.

Hang on ...

Reminds me of the classic paragraph in Catch-22.  The best piece of writing I think I have ever read.

"There was only one catch and that was Catch-22, which specified that a concern for one's safety in the face of dangers that were real and immediate was the process of a rational mind. Orr was crazy and could be grounded. All he had to do was ask; and as soon as he did, he would no longer be crazy and would have to fly more missions. Orr would be crazy to fly more missions and sane if he didn't, but if he was sane he had to fly them. If he flew them he was crazy and didn't have to; but if he didn't want to he was sane and had to. Yossarian was moved very deeply by the absolute simplicity of this clause of Catch-22 and let out a respectful whistle."

[gingerjon]

10 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

Reminds me of the classic paragraph in Catch-22.  The best piece of writing I think I have ever read.

"There was only one catch and that was Catch-22, which specified that a concern for one's safety in the face of dangers that were real and immediate was the process of a rational mind. Orr was crazy and could be grounded. All he had to do was ask; and as soon as he did, he would no longer be crazy and would have to fly more missions. Orr would be crazy to fly more missions and sane if he didn't, but if he was sane he had to fly them. If he flew them he was crazy and didn't have to; but if he didn't want to he was sane and had to. Yossarian was moved very deeply by the absolute simplicity of this clause of Catch-22 and let out a respectful whistle."

Thanks for that. It is worth being reminded how well constructed the Catch-22 is.

[Dunbar]

14 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

Thanks for that. It is worth being reminded how well constructed the Catch-22 is.

Even better that one of Nick Fozzard's tweets? That's a big call.

[gingerjon]

1 minute ago, Dunbar said:

Even better that one of Nick Fozzard's tweets? That's a big call.

It's a fair call that I do not believe that Nobel Prize nominee Joseph Heller could ever have written anything with the wisdom, grace and style of a Nick Fozzard tweet.

[Dave T]

I am OK with past players doing what they need to do on stuff like this. I don't think macho after-dinner style speeches are going to harm him really, as I don't think any case would be on the grounds that the RFL allowed the foul play - they didn't, it was always illegal. Fozzard claiming that shoulders to the head were perfectly legal is simply wrong. 

But, that does bring us onto whether the RFL and the clubs acted with player welfare in mind. If they can justify that they had suitable medical advice, protocols, punishments to act as deterrents, and that these were always followed, then I expect they will be OK. 

If I was a player though, I'd probably be using the downgrading of punishments in 2023 because some loudmouths didn't like bans as an example of the sport putting other interests ahead of player welfare. 

I hope any case is unsuccessful, not because I want the players to fail, but because it would mean that the game has acted correctly over the years. 

[Dunbar]

2 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I am OK with past players doing what they need to do on stuff like this. I don't think macho after-dinner style speeches are going to harm him really, as I don't think any case would be on the grounds that the RFL allowed the foul play - they didn't, it was always illegal. Fozzard claiming that shoulders to the head were perfectly legal is simply wrong. 

But, that does bring us onto whether the RFL and the clubs acted with player welfare in mind. If they can justify that they had suitable medical advice, protocols, punishments to act as deterrents, and that these were always followed, then I expect they will be OK. 

If I was a player though, I'd probably be using the downgrading of punishments in 2023 because some loudmouths didn't like bans as an example of the sport putting other interests ahead of player welfare. 

I hope any case is unsuccessful, not because I want the players to fail, but because it would mean that the game has acted correctly over the years. 

I don't think any of us can really comment with authority on the legal claim - unless you are in the legal profession. 

My point is more of the moral (if that is the right word).  To glorify how you acted outside the laws of game and deliberately inflicted harm on a fellow player while simultaneously making a claim that the game caused you harm is just off.

[bobbruce]

2 hours ago, GeordieSaint said:

Is this true - bottom bit about Roach?

 

He’s got to be at least 53 surely he’s not still playing. 

[Dave T]

27 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

I don't think any of us can really comment with authority on the legal claim - unless you are in the legal profession. 

My point is more of the moral (if that is the right word).  To glorify how you acted outside the laws of game and deliberately inflicted harm on a fellow player while simultaneously making a claim that the game caused you harm is just off.

I suppose it depends what the claim is. Fozzard is clearly a bit, well, dim in many of his posts, but it wouldn't negate any neglect. 

I expect the claim isn't that RL is dangerous, I expect there has to be a claim of neglect. 

Where Fozzard maybe leaves himself open is to a claim from Sinfield against him. But in reality, maybe that tweet is a perfect example of why the governing body needed to be tough, because the people playing are not going to look after themselves. 

[Dunbar]

17 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I suppose it depends what the claim is. Fozzard is clearly a bit, well, dim in many of his posts, but it wouldn't negate any neglect. 

I expect the claim isn't that RL is dangerous, I expect there has to be a claim of neglect. 

Where Fozzard maybe leaves himself open is to a claim from Sinfield against him. But in reality, maybe that tweet is a perfect example of why the governing body needed to be tough, because the people playing are not going to look after themselves. 

As I say, I am in no way qualified to comment on the legal merits of this claim.

[Damien]

4 hours ago, GeordieSaint said:

Is this true - bottom bit about Roach?

 

That tweet from Fozzard comes across abysmally. Yes I know that goes without saying for a Fozzard tweet. I think he sees this as easy money and is deluded if he thinks this will not cost the game, insurance money paying a claim or not. It just comes across as pure greed.

[The Blues Ox]

2 hours ago, Dave T said:

I suppose it depends what the claim is. Fozzard is clearly a bit, well, dim in many of his posts, but it wouldn't negate any neglect. 

I expect the claim isn't that RL is dangerous, I expect there has to be a claim of neglect. 

Where Fozzard maybe leaves himself open is to a claim from Sinfield against him. But in reality, maybe that tweet is a perfect example of why the governing body needed to be tough, because the people playing are not going to look after themselves. 

Yeah from Fozzard's tweets it looks like the claim is based around the RFL either knowing more than they let on to the players or some sort of neglect. Either way its great to see the "Rugby League Family" rallying round these players with potential brain injuries rather than just wishing they slowly disappear in to a hole........

[Dave T]

Just now, The Blues Ox said:

Yeah from Fozzard's tweets it looks like the claim is based around the RFL either knowing more than they let on to the players or some sort of neglect. Either way its great to see the "Rugby League Family" rallying round these players with potential brain injuries rather than just wishing they slowly disappear in to a hole........

I think people need to have calm heads with sensible discussions here, and obviously social media isn't the place for that. 

I'm not sure a current club owner attacking somebody is the way to go here. 

[Damien]

1 minute ago, The Blues Ox said:

Yeah from Fozzard's tweets it looks like the claim is based around the RFL either knowing more than they let on to the players or some sort of neglect. Either way its great to see the "Rugby League Family" rallying round these players with potential brain injuries rather than just wishing they slowly disappear in to a hole........

Maybe many of the RL family, who largely played the games for nothing and who were just as aware of the risks as Fozzard, simply don't agree. Anyone that has played the game at any level could do as Fozzard is doing and it is their right to have a different opinion.

[Dave T]

6 minutes ago, Damien said:

Maybe many of the RL family, who largely played the games for nothing and who were just as aware of the risks as Fozzard, simply don't agree. Anyone that has played the game at any level could do as Fozzard is doing and it is their right to have a different opinion.

I would be stunned if he is claiming that RL is dangerous. I expect that wouldn't get off the ground and we wouldn't even have sports like boxing etc. 

This will be all about whether the governing body and employers were negligent.

For example, did they cultivate a culture which downplayed the seriousness of foul play by watering down punishments because some journos moaned?

Or did clubs encourage players to play when hurt? 

 

[Damien]

4 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I would be stunned if he is claiming that RL is dangerous. I expect that wouldn't get off the ground and we wouldn't even have sports like boxing etc. 

This will be all about whether the governing body and employers were negligent.

For example, did they cultivate a culture which downplayed the seriousness of foul play by watering down punishments because some journos moaned?

Or did clubs encourage players to play when hurt? 

 

I know, I never said otherwise and have already said the same.