Nick Fozzard getting dragged on Twitter

[Dave T]

It is interesting to see people blindly defend the game here, when those same people constantly pull the governing body and clubs apart for doing things poorly and doing things on the cheap. 

This is my worry. I can absolutely believe that clubs and governing bodies havent taken this as seriously as they should have because of costs. 

[Dunbar]

2 hours ago, gingerjon said:

Perhaps they do.

Maybe the duty of care RL has always owed them is also about doing everything to ensure those players are in a fit state to do thar.

Now, and thinking just about the bit related to head injuries, do you think rugby league has always done the right thing by its players?

And whether you do it not, is the "we're too poor to be a responsible governing body", which has been out forward time and again on this thread, really such a great defence?

I think you are misinterpreting the point on the game not having a lot of money.

It also comes back to this concept of there being 'the sport' and the 'the players'.

That just isn't how Rugby League is set up.  Even in the pro ranks, there is a sense of it being a cottage industry.  The coaches and often the administrators are drawn from the ex player pool.

The players define how the game is played and we have seen time and again how players past and present they have resisted change which is intended to protect them.

And even if we go past the way the game is played amd into the more duty of care element of managing head knocks and player welfare, who did we expect to do this? The guy running on the pitch with a bucket of water and a sponge. 

It is only relatively recently that we have been professional when it come to player conditioning and even then the long term effects of head injury is such a niche area, should clubs have been up to speed on all current thinking in the 19090's and the 2000's

You mentioned in a previous that we were not too poor to subscribe to Lancet.  But who was supposed to subscribe and who at a typical Rugby League outfit was supposed to be following the contemporary insights into brain injury?

This is why we are not the same as a multi billion industry like NFL and cannot be compared as such.

I think you expected too much of a sport that was not set up to deliver it.

[Dunbar]

5 minutes ago, Dave T said:

It is interesting to see people blindly defend the game here, when those same people constantly pull the governing body and clubs apart for doing things poorly and doing things on the cheap. 

This is my worry. I can absolutely believe that clubs and governing bodies havent taken this as seriously as they should have because of costs. 

Why is it 'blindly' defending the game.

You think because people have a different view that they haven't thought it through?

[Dave T]

1 minute ago, Dunbar said:

Why is it 'blindly' defending the game.

You think because people have a different view that they haven't thought it through?

The claim is that the RFL were neglectful from people in the game. No evidence has been presented by anyone here about why the governing body and clubs haven't been neglectful. That's why it's blind. 

[Damien]

9 hours ago, lucky 7 said:

Get a trade or profession so that when you can't play anymore you have something to fall back on

This has always been the case and again there is some personal responsibility here. This again is not all down to clubs and the RFL although I do know that many SL clubs do great work now in this area. 

Even when I was coming through the ranks in the 1990s I was acutely aware that RL was a short career and that unless you made it to the top didn't pay well. Some I knew went all it for RL, and frankly didnt give a damn when it came to education before signing pro. This would have been the case RL or not. Others went pro but still pursued education on the side. Others chose to go to University and didn't follow the professional route for whatever reason.

A lot of this is dictated by the will of the individual. It is also a fact that a lot of RL players come from poorer backgrounds, and sometimes not the best of environments, with plenty of their peers leaving school with no real career plan, RL or not. That's a social issue.

[Dunbar]

Just now, Dave T said:

The claim is that the RFL were neglectful from people in the game. No evidence has been presented by anyone here about why the governing body and clubs haven't been neglectful. That's why it's blind. 

I always thought that it was the responsibility of those making a claim to prove it.

[Barley Mow]

7 minutes ago, Dave T said:

The claim is that the RFL were neglectful from people in the game. No evidence has been presented by anyone here about why the governing body and clubs haven't been neglectful. That's why it's blind. 

Unless/until we see the cases that will be argued in court (should it get that far), on here it is mainly conjecture on both sides.

[The Masked Poster]

I certainly aren't "blindly defending the game" and I don't think anyone else is either. In fact, if anything it's vindication of past criticism about doing things half heartedly and on the cheap. But until relatively recently the solution to a player lying spark out was a rub with the sponge. This has changed as medical advice has become more stringent. Let's be honest, we all used to admire a player who got knocked out and then ran back straight onto the pitch. Aren't we all slightly culpable then? We knew they were being reckless, even at the time. 

But I digress. It matters not who wins here, the fact is that RL hasn't got a pot to pee in. Sure, it could pay out something and maybe some players could win relatively decent payouts. 

But do you think a game that can only give peanuts to League 1 clubs and had to cull development officers left right and centre, can do that and still continue as usual? I don't.

[Damien]

11 minutes ago, Dave T said:

The claim is that the RFL were neglectful from people in the game. No evidence has been presented by anyone here about why the governing body and clubs haven't been neglectful. That's why it's blind. 

What do mean by evidence? I've certainly seen it discussed repeatedly on this thread that the RFL have long implemented concussion protocols following medical advice at that time. That is far from the governing body being neglectful.

[Damien]

24 minutes ago, Dave T said:

It is interesting to see people blindly defend the game here, when those same people constantly pull the governing body and clubs apart for doing things poorly and doing things on the cheap. 

That's strawman stuff Dave and you should give people more credit than that.

[Dave T]

8 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

I always thought that it was the responsibility of those making a claim to prove it.

Of course and there is plenty of conjecture. But players are telling us that clubs and the governing body neglected their duty of care. 

But you post is sort of my point. People are dismissing Fozzard when they don't know his claims. That's blind faith in an organisation that they usually spend all day berating for poor behaviours, corruption, incompetence etc. 

I think for me it all comes down to one question. "Where the RFL/Clubs neglectful?". 

The details will be presented in due course, but I'm not sure how anyone could have a level of confidence in the game acting correctly over the last 20 to 30 years or so. I hope they have and they win the case (and the players get what they need), but it's a worry. 

[Dave T]

22 minutes ago, Damien said:

What do mean by evidence? I've certainly seen it discussed repeatedly on this thread that the RFL have long implemented concussion protocols following medical advice at that time. That is far from the governing body being neglectful.

So that is a defence being presented, but it doesn't address whether it was implemented at the right time, was followed robustly, was open to abuse etc. And what about Fozard's claim in the Mail article (spit) that he suffered a horrible facial injury and didn't get the treatment he needed, including a lack of scans etc?

In reality, not a single person here know whether the RFL/Clubs were neglectful, but there seems to be a fair amount of faith that we will have done absolutely everything we should have by the book. I'm not so confident. I hope I'm wrong on this.

[Dave T]

23 minutes ago, Damien said:

That's strawman stuff Dave and you should give people more credit than that.

It's a perfectly valid and relevant point. People are arguing that a governing body will have been spot on in this area, but spend all day telling us that the RFL are incompetent. Why the faith that the RFL were spot on here?

[Dave T]

27 minutes ago, The Masked Poster said:

I certainly aren't "blindly defending the game" and I don't think anyone else is either. In fact, if anything it's vindication of past criticism about doing things half heartedly and on the cheap. But until relatively recently the solution to a player lying spark out was a rub with the sponge. This has changed as medical advice has become more stringent. Let's be honest, we all used to admire a player who got knocked out and then ran back straight onto the pitch. Aren't we all slightly culpable then? We knew they were being reckless, even at the time. 

But I digress. It matters not who wins here, the fact is that RL hasn't got a pot to pee in. Sure, it could pay out something and maybe some players could win relatively decent payouts. 

But do you think a game that can only give peanuts to League 1 clubs and had to cull development officers left right and centre, can do that and still continue as usual? I don't.

As far as I am aware - nobody is arguing about the safety of the actual game of RL - in the same way that boxing and MMA are perfectly legal sports around the world. 

We are talking about the care for players around that from the governing body and their employers.

On your bottom point, of course, that is the risk here, and is why we should all hope that the RFL have acted well at all times and win any case brought. 

[Dunbar]

14 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Of course and there is plenty of conjecture. But players are telling us that clubs and the governing body neglected their duty of care. 

But you post is sort of my point. People are dismissing Fozzard when they don't know his claims. That's blind faith in an organisation that they usually spend all day berating for poor behaviours, corruption, incompetence etc. 

I think for me it all comes down to one question. "Where the RFL/Clubs neglectful?". 

The details will be presented in due course, but I'm not sure how anyone could have a level of confidence in the game acting correctly over the last 20 to 30 years or so. I hope they have and they win the case (and the players get what they need), but it's a worry. 

I have said several times on this thread that I don't have the knowledge or experience to provide insight into the legal merits of this case.

In essence, until the case for the players is presented and any defence from 'the sport' is presented back then we are all in the dark.

I just fiund it interesting that you only describe one side of this as blindly defending their viewpoint though.  It was just felt dismissive. 

[Dunbar]

4 minutes ago, Dave T said:

It's a perfectly valid and relevant point. People are arguing that a governing body will have been spot on in this area, but spend all day telling us that the RFL are incompetent. Why the faith that the RFL were spot on here?

I don't think anyone has argued this at all on this thread or any other thread on the topic.

[Tommygilf]

4 minutes ago, Dave T said:

It's a perfectly valid and relevant point. People are arguing that a governing body will have been spot on in this area, but spend all day telling us that the RFL are incompetent. Why the faith that the RFL were spot on here?

That is not what is happening at all.

My honest belief is that if the RFL knew something about concussion, everyone would have known it. If nobody in RL knew it, then the RFL didn't either. 

[Dave T]

Just now, Dunbar said:

I have said several times on this thread that I don't have the knowledge or experience to provide insight into the legal merits of this case.

In essence, until the case for the players is presented and any defence from 'the sport' is presented back then we are all in the dark.

I just fiund it interesting that you only describe one side of this as blindly defending their viewpoint though.  It was just felt dismissive. 

I don't think there are sides here - surely we all want this to go the RFL's way (and the players get any help they need)?

But if anyone has formed the opinion that players don't have a valid claim is absolutely displaying blind faith (and I would argue misplaced blind faith!). And that is because, as you have said on here, we don't know the claims being made. All we know is they are claims of neglect.

 

[Dave T]

2 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

I don't think anyone has argued this at all on this thread or any other thread on the topic.

So I would expect more support for players who have suffered neglect then tbh.

[Damien]

9 minutes ago, Dave T said:

So that is a defence being presented, but it doesn't address whether it was implemented at the right time, was followed robustly, was open to abuse etc. And what about Fozard's claim in the Mail article (spit) that he suffered a horrible facial injury and didn't get the treatment he needed, including a lack of scans etc?

In reality, not a single person here know whether the RFL/Clubs were neglectful, but there seems to be a fair amount of faith that we will have done absolutely everything we should have by the book. I'm not so confident. I hope I'm wrong on this.

No one has said we have done everything by the book. It's a debate based on what we know and people have differing opinions. As much as you are making assumptions others are too

[Dave T]

2 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

That is not what is happening at all.

My honest belief is that if the RFL knew something about concussion, everyone would have known it. If nobody in RL knew it, then the RFL didn't either. 

I don't buy the conspiracy point tbh, I'd be surprised if that formed any kind of legal case. But we can see here that Rugby Union and Rugby League have taken very different approaches even in the last 2 years here. So decisions are being taken by the RFL and they will be judged on those.

[Dave T]

Just now, Damien said:

No one has said we have done everything by the book. It's a debate based on what we know and people have differing opinions. As much as you are making assumptions others are too

I'm not making a single assumption. I have no idea whether any case of neglect would be successful. I hope not.

[Damien]

10 minutes ago, Dave T said:

It's a perfectly valid and relevant point. People are arguing that a governing body will have been spot on in this area, but spend all day telling us that the RFL are incompetent. Why the faith that the RFL were spot on here?

Who has said they've been spot on? Again that's strawman.

What I don't think is that they were hiding all this evidence, as Fozzard is making out, and that they knew no more than players and fans. You know because they are incompetent and I don't believe they did all these studies in the 90s and 00s and hid the results.

[Tommygilf]

3 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I don't buy the conspiracy point tbh, I'd be surprised if that formed any kind of legal case. But we can see here that Rugby Union and Rugby League have taken very different approaches even in the last 2 years here. So decisions are being taken by the RFL and they will be judged on those.

I think you're conflating your dislike for the new MRP charging grades with this to suit your point of view there.

[Damien]

10 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

I don't think anyone has argued this at all on this thread or any other thread on the topic.

Nope, I've seen no one say this.