Nick Fozzard getting dragged on Twitter

[Dave T]

Just now, Damien said:

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

So those who played for free are irrelevant, as they won't have been in those situations. We are talking about the professional sport. A lad who plays RL on a field on a Sunday morning won't have a clue about whether Fozard was given suitable medical support and advice by Warrington/Saints/Leeds etc. 

It'll be what it'll be. 

[Dunbar]

10 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 guess this is where I am coming from.  Although let me stress that I have huge sympathy for the players whose quality of life is deteriorating.

I didn't get paid to play Rugby League.  But I did play 10 seasons at junior, open age and University level in the 80's and 90's.  And I remember plenty of times feeling sick after a head knock - and I am sure there were plenty of times when I don't even remember the head knock at all.

And I have to admit that I do worry about the effects that it has had on me.  Not least because my mother is now in full time care suffering from Alzheimer's and Dementia and doesn't recognise any of her children when we go to see her, or in fact have any understanding of her life or existence.  I fear that is my future.

But here is the thing.  I was a bright but reckless lad in my 20's and I thought I was unbreakable.  I thoroughly enjoyed playing Rugby and I don't for a second believe that there was anyone in the sport of Rugby League who knew the long term effects of the repetitive head contact and suppressed it.

There may be an argument that in the last 20 years the sport hasn't progressed as much as it should have in player protection but in my case the choices and any consequences are entirely mine.

[Dave T]

1 minute ago, Dunbar said:

I guess this is where I am coming from.  Although let me stress that I have huge sympathy for the players whose quality of life is deteriorating.

I didn't get paid to play Rugby League.  But I did play 10 seasons at junior, open age and University level in the 80's and 90's.  And I remember plenty of times feeling sick after a head knock - and I am sure there were plenty of times when I don't even remember the head knock at all.

And I have to admit that I do worry about the effects that it has had on me.  Not least because my mother is now in full time care suffering from Alzheimer's and Dementia and doesn't recognise any of her children when we go to see her, or in fact have any understanding of her life or existence.  I fear that is my future.

But here is the thing.  I was a bright but reckless lad in my 20's and I thought I was unbreakable.  I thoroughly enjoyed playing Rugby and I don't for a second believe that there was anyone in the sport of Rugby League who knew the long term effects of the repetitive head contact and suppressed it.

There may be an argument that in the last 20 years the sport hasn't progressed as much as it should have in player protection but in my case the choices and any consequences are entirely mine.

All that is fair enough, I do think it is very different to it being your job and your employer having a duty of care. 

[Dunbar]

38 minutes ago, Dave T said:

All that is fair enough, I do think it is very different to it being your job and your employer having a duty of care. 

Yes, that is reasonable.

From my perspective (as I have said, not necessarily a legal point but my personal view), the key factor is whether risks were known and not enough action was taken to mitigate those risks.

In my era of playing (mid 80's to mid 90's) I do not believe enough was known.  In the least 2 decades then this may be different. 

Edited April 15, 2023 by Dunbar

[Dave T]

Just now, Dunbar said:

Yes, that is reasonable.

From my perspective (as I have said, not necessarily a legal point but my pwrsonal view), the key factor is whether risks were known and not enough action was taken to mitigate those risks.

In my era of playing (mid 80's to mid 90's) I do not believe enough was known.  In the least 2 decades then this may be different. 

I think to build on your point, we would have a reasonable defence if we had enough reasonable mitigants in place for what was known at the time. So in the 90s we knew less than now, but if that is because we buried our head in the sand, that's in issue. I expect as long as we were using a sensible level of medical guidance, it feels like that gives us a defendable position. 

Haven't there been some instances of clubs not following HIA protocol even in recent years? If that kind of thing was widespread in previous years then there could be a problem. 

[Damien]

13 minutes ago, Dave T said:

So those who played for free are irrelevant, as they won't have been in those situations. We are talking about the professional sport. A lad who plays RL on a field on a Sunday morning won't have a clue about whether Fozard was given suitable medical support and advice by Warrington/Saints/Leeds etc. 

It'll be what it'll be. 

They are not irrelevant. The amateur game has protocols and has clubs, unpaid coaches and volunteers that have to follow these protocols. This is set all set by the RFL. As Fozzard is arguing that the RFL knew of the risks and covered them up then this argument also applies to anyone that has played the game. Players at amateur clubs were similarly treated with the magic sponge and pressured to play. I see no difference.

[Dave T]

Just now, Damien said:

They are not irrelevant. The amateur game has protocols and has clubs, unpaid coaches and volunteers that have to follow these protocols. This is set all set by the RFL. As Fozzard is arguing that the RFL knew of the risks and covered them up then this argument also applies to anyone that has played the game. Players at amateur clubs were similarly treated with the magic sponge and pressured to play. I see no difference.

That's a fair point if that's the case. If there is evidence of a cover up, I'd be surprised if anyone stuck up for the RFL.

Of course that is a big if. 

[Damien]

9 minutes ago, Dave T said:

That's a fair point if that's the case. If there is evidence of a cover up, I'd be surprised if anyone stuck up for the RFL.

Of course that is a big if. 

That is why I said in one of my previous posts, and I paraphrase somewhat, that I do not think there is a case against the RFL because I don't think they were hiding something the players did not know. They have also followed medical advice regarding concussion protocols for a long time. I do think it gets murky with regards to individual cases and suing clubs for being negligent and circumventing any protocols.

Edited April 15, 2023 by Damien

[Tex Evans Thigh]

he shouldnt have a case, but blokes like him make the sport and he's clearly suffering from it. It would be great if the sport could support blokes like him but, as always, it comes down to funds, with the irony being that it will now cost the RFL more funds.

[The Blues Ox]

7 hours ago, Tex Evans Thigh said:

he shouldnt have a case, but blokes like him make the sport and he's clearly suffering from it. It would be great if the sport could support blokes like him but, as always, it comes down to funds, with the irony being that it will now cost the RFL more funds.

The saddest part in all this, those players the RFL have probably washed their hands of up until this and those idiots on social media using this as an opportunity to slate those players that provided them entertainment for probably very little return.

Andy Mazey comes accross as your typical club owner, doesn't give a toss about the players until something like this happens. Beaumont offering Fozzard money was really low as well. While a lot of the anger is lead by Tommy Robinson supporting, Andrew Tate loving, Matt Le tissier worshipping type folks on twitter though it does make it hard to listen to the other side of the players.

[Bedfordshire Bronco]

16 hours ago, Dunbar said:

I guess this is where I am coming from.  Although let me stress that I have huge sympathy for the players whose quality of life is deteriorating.

I didn't get paid to play Rugby League.  But I did play 10 seasons at junior, open age and University level in the 80's and 90's.  And I remember plenty of times feeling sick after a head knock - and I am sure there were plenty of times when I don't even remember the head knock at all.

And I have to admit that I do worry about the effects that it has had on me.  Not least because my mother is now in full time care suffering from Alzheimer's and Dementia and doesn't recognise any of her children when we go to see her, or in fact have any understanding of her life or existence.  I fear that is my future.

But here is the thing.  I was a bright but reckless lad in my 20's and I thought I was unbreakable.  I thoroughly enjoyed playing Rugby and I don't for a second believe that there was anyone in the sport of Rugby League who knew the long term effects of the repetitive head contact and suppressed it.

There may be an argument that in the last 20 years the sport hasn't progressed as much as it should have in player protection but in my case the choices and any consequences are entirely mine.

There are plenty of us in our forties (and even a couple of fifty somethings) in our fourth team RU side.......interestingly the whole question has never come up in the past or recently 

Maybe a collective denial persists.....I don't like to dwell.on it myself but maybe I should 

I have seen no change in attitudes to it at our level at least 

[Damien]

12 minutes ago, Bedfordshire Bronco said:

There are plenty of us in our forties (and even a couple of fifty somethings) in our fourth team RU side.......interestingly the whole question has never come up in the past or recently 

Maybe a collective denial persists.....I don't like to dwell.on it myself but maybe I should 

I have seen no change in attitudes to it at our level at least 

I can well believe it and am not surprised in the slightest. People have known for a long time that playing Rugby carries risk and have played anyway because they enjoy the sport. Maybe people haven't always been as aware regarding concussion as they are now but I'm not sure if that changes anything for many, its just another risk to consider. Just as people know Boxing, Football etc carries risk but people still do these sports because they enjoy them.

[GeordieSaint]

1 hour ago, The Blues Ox said:

The saddest part in all this, those players the RFL have probably washed their hands of up until this. 

How have the RFL washed their hands of these players? I have no idea so interested in your thoughts. 

[Bedfordshire Bronco]

1 hour ago, Damien said:

I can well believe it and am not surprised in the slightest. People have known for a long time that playing Rugby carries risk and have played anyway because they enjoy the sport. Maybe people haven't always been as aware regarding concussion as they are now but I'm not sure if that changes anything for many, its just another risk to consider. Just as people know Boxing, Football etc carries risk but people still do these sports because they enjoy them.

There still persists a 'get back on as soon as you can ' mentality for us..

Especially as we often turn up with no or.little bench at our level 

[The Masked Poster]

People were aware (or at least it was suspected) that heading old style footballs many years ago, lead to brain injury. Likewise boxing. 

And this was in the 70's. 

Is he really saying that at the time he played, there was no talk about head trauma being a potentially serious problem? Because I can definitely say there was 

I wish him no ill will and hope he is ok but I strongly suspect that if I'd said to him 20 years ago that he should modify his playing style, he'd have laughed at me and told me that is how he played. 

Not everything is someone else's fault.

[The Masked Poster]

21 hours ago, Dunbar said:

I guess this is where I am coming from.  Although let me stress that I have huge sympathy for the players whose quality of life is deteriorating.

I didn't get paid to play Rugby League.  But I did play 10 seasons at junior, open age and University level in the 80's and 90's.  And I remember plenty of times feeling sick after a head knock - and I am sure there were plenty of times when I don't even remember the head knock at all.

And I have to admit that I do worry about the effects that it has had on me.  Not least because my mother is now in full time care suffering from Alzheimer's and Dementia and doesn't recognise any of her children when we go to see her, or in fact have any understanding of her life or existence.  I fear that is my future.

But here is the thing.  I was a bright but reckless lad in my 20's and I thought I was unbreakable.  I thoroughly enjoyed playing Rugby and I don't for a second believe that there was anyone in the sport of Rugby League who knew the long term effects of the repetitive head contact and suppressed it.

There may be an argument that in the last 20 years the sport hasn't progressed as much as it should have in player protection but in my case the choices and any consequences are entirely mine.

My own mother died of Alzheimer's so I can well sympathise with you. And every time I go into a room and forget what I went in for, I think "oh here we go" 

But probably like your mother, she never played a game of RL or any sport in her life and you are at no more risk than anyone else. It is genetic sometimes but your RL playing days are unlikely to contribute to it, it will either happen or it won't. All the best pal.

[The Blues Ox]

8 hours ago, GeordieSaint said:

How have the RFL washed their hands of these players? I have no idea so interested in your thoughts. 

Rugby's dirty little secret, its only recently that any sort of after care has come in for players leaving the game or having to retire early because of injury or for that matter those struggling with substance abuse, depression or similar. Out of sight out of mind and I think that is also one of the reasons these players are getting so much stick, most people currently in the game don't want to be hearing talk about brain injuries when they are trying to grow a game that is as physical as Rugby League.

[The Blues Ox]

4 hours ago, The Masked Poster said:

Is he really saying that at the time he played, there was no talk about head trauma being a potentially serious problem? Because I can definitely say there was 

The players case could probably be built on some of the things you say there. Their argument will be that they were never made fully aware of the dangers because like you say this isn't a new thing and research has been done decades ago so was the care of the players neglected.

I think in this thread it is easy to see how both sides will argue their cases and what they are built on and its really hard to say if the players will win or not but one thing it will do that can't be a bad thing is raise awareness for people playing the game in the future and that has to be a positive.

[bobbruce]

54 minutes ago, The Blues Ox said:

The players case could probably be built on some of the things you say there. Their argument will be that they were never made fully aware of the dangers because like you say this isn't a new thing and research has been done decades ago so was the care of the players neglected.

I think in this thread it is easy to see how both sides will argue their cases and what they are built on and its really hard to say if the players will win or not but one thing it will do that can't be a bad thing is raise awareness for people playing the game in the future and that has to be a positive.

It will if there’s no game to play. 

[GeordieSaint]

1 hour ago, The Blues Ox said:

Rugby's dirty little secret, its only recently that any sort of after care has come in for players leaving the game or having to retire early because of injury or for that matter those struggling with substance abuse, depression or similar. Out of sight out of mind and I think that is also one of the reasons these players are getting so much stick, most people currently in the game don't want to be hearing talk about brain injuries when they are trying to grow a game that is as physical as Rugby League.

Genuinely playing devil’s advocate here, but whose responsibility is it to provide aftercare? The RFL’s? Or the Clubs who are the employers? 

If the RFL are putting the processes and rules in place to help mitigate injury and the effects, is it not the club’s responsibility to look after the well being of the players?

Do we need to provide post-career care as well? Do other employers like the NHS or the military do it? The latter do it through Regimental Associations (or Charities) rather than any centralised MOD support. 

[Damien]

57 minutes ago, GeordieSaint said:

Genuinely playing devil’s advocate here, but whose responsibility is it to provide aftercare? The RFL’s? Or the Clubs who are the employers? 

If the RFL are putting the processes and rules in place to help mitigate injury and the effects, is it not the club’s responsibility to look after the well being of the players?

Do we need to provide post-career care as well? Do other employers like the NHS or the military do it? The latter do it through Regimental Associations (or Charities) rather than any centralised MOD support. 

Similar to RLCares then

[The Blues Ox]

56 minutes ago, GeordieSaint said:

Genuinely playing devil’s advocate here, but whose responsibility is it to provide aftercare? The RFL’s? Or the Clubs who are the employers? 

If the RFL are putting the processes and rules in place to help mitigate injury and the effects, is it not the club’s responsibility to look after the well being of the players?

Do we need to provide post-career care as well? Do other employers like the NHS or the military do it? The latter do it through Regimental Associations (or Charities) rather than any centralised MOD support. 

Not sure but its something that probably needs looking at. I guess each situation is different but in say Rangi Chase, Jansin Turgut I think responsibility has to be with the RFL where as other cases may be different but I would say overall the players should be the responsibility of the RFL and not just looked at as pieces of meat who can be forgot about once they finish playing.

[GeordieSaint]

26 minutes ago, The Blues Ox said:

Not sure but it’s something that probably needs looking at. I guess each situation is different but in say Rangi Chase, Jansin Turgut I think responsibility has to be with the RFL where as other cases may be different but I would say overall the players should be the responsibility of the RFL and not just looked at as pieces of meat who can be forgot about once they finish playing.

Mine is just an opinion of many, but individual player welfare is not the RFL’s responsibility. Their responsibility is overall governance and laying out policy and direction for clubs, associations, charities to follow - all based on legislation, the latest medical advice etc etc. The RFL doesn’t and shouldn’t have the resource to deal with individual matters, no matter how tragic they are. That governance, direction and policy setting is where the RFL provides duty of care responsibilities. 

[RigbyLuger]

1 hour ago, The Blues Ox said:

Not sure but its something that probably needs looking at. I guess each situation is different but in say Rangi Chase, Jansin Turgut I think responsibility has to be with the RFL where as other cases may be different but I would say overall the players should be the responsibility of the RFL and not just looked at as pieces of meat who can be forgot about once they finish playing.

Players choose to take drugs, that's their decision. I can't believe that a professional sportsperson doesn't have a better support network at their workplace than most of us in the real world. If you've failed three tests, I'm not sure what the RFL, RL Cares or anyone else can do, and the individual needs to take responsibility for that.

[DACS]

Aside from a benevolent fund approach, how exactly is a cash-strapped sport like RL supposed to help ex-players if their lives have gone off the rails, and for how long would the game be liable (ten years, twenty years, fifty years)? Does anyone get this from any other industry, except maybe the military?

Nobody is suggesting the game should ignore these guys, but we (and the people looking to get compensation) also need to be realistic as to what it could possibly pay for. Even our biggest clubs are not much more than small businesses. Just for information the government definition of a small business is less than £10 M turnover and less than 50 employees - RL clubs might exceed the headcount number but not the revenue. On top of that most of our clubs will operate at a loss or very small level of profit. As an example Sts revenue in 2021 was £7M, and they made a loss that year.