Jump to content

Nick Fozzard getting dragged on Twitter


Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, Dave T said:

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

There is a spectrum here - it is not just 'spot on' or neglect.  If only life were that straightforward.

  • Like 1

"The history of the world is the history of the triumph of the heartless over the mindless." — Sir Humphrey Appleby.

"If someone doesn't value evidence, what evidence are you going to provide to prove that they should value it? If someone doesn't value logic, what logical argument could you provide to show the importance of logic?" — Sam Harris

Link to comment
Share on other sites


14 minutes ago, Dave T said:

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. 

Agreed that I hope they acted with care for their players and any affected players get looked after, as far as is practicable.

But we used to think RL was a tough but safe sport. That could change if medical science says that RL has always been dangerous and should not be allowed (unless without modification that would change the game beyond recognition)

It's potentially a huge can of worms. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From Love RL:

The 53 allegations raised by the Claimants include the failure by the Defendant to:

  • Allow, sanction, tolerate, and oversee rugby matches that proceeded without any or any proper or appropriate regard for the safety of players as regards head contacts.
  • Ensure that a properly qualified individual was in charge of the treatment of head injuries within the sport and the systems, protocols and enforcement that related to the same.
  • Improperly, negligently, and unquestioningly rely on the advice of Paul McCrory, who has since been found guilty of multiple counts of plagiarism and gave an undertaking in 2018 to the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency not to perform neurodiagnostic procedures.
  • Respond to changes in the intensity and physicality of the game of rugby league over the course of the 1980s and 90s through the adaptation of rules, protocols, guidance, officiating or at all.
  • Allow young players from the age of 16 to play professional or semi-professional rugby league with adults in circumstances where they were not fully developed.
  • Introduce independent concussion spotters in a timely fashion.
  • Institute independent pitch-side medics leading to over-reliance on club medics who are heavily conflicted.
  • Be negligently inactive in relation to head and neck injuries, concussions, sub-concussions and long-term neurological harm arising in or from the sport it governed.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Presumably, like all employers, RL clubs must have Employer's Liability insurance.  Would this not be the target for any legal action?  Employers have a duty of care to employees, which includes risk assessments of tasks undertaken and I can't imagine this responsibility is waived purely due to the nature of the job.  For example, stuntmen have to be covered for things going wrong in their work, regardless of the inherent danger involved and the insurance premiums are no-doubt reflective of that.

Assuming this to be the case, then if there is any proven information, available at the time, regarding the long-term head-injury effects of playing RL then these players will have a case.  And it would be the insurers of the clubs at the time they were playing that would be liable, regardless of when the ill-effects present themselves.  It is no defence for RL to say 'we didn't know about it', if there are published proven studies from the era in question.  Ignorance isn't a defence.

It will be up to the barristers involved to prove negligence, including the existance of evidence at the time, then it will be an argument with the insurer as to whether their specific policy excludes this issue.

However it pans out, it will take years.  It's similar in many ways to the issues caused by asbestos, in that it presents decades after exposure.  Although I would imaging in this case, causality will be much harder to prove.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Tubby said:

Presumably, like all employers, RL clubs must have Employer's Liability insurance.  Would this not be the target for any legal action?  Employers have a duty of care to employees, which includes risk assessments of tasks undertaken and I can't imagine this responsibility is waived purely due to the nature of the job.  For example, stuntmen have to be covered for things going wrong in their work, regardless of the inherent danger involved and the insurance premiums are no-doubt reflective of that.

Assuming this to be the case, then if there is any proven information, available at the time, regarding the long-term head-injury effects of playing RL then these players will have a case.  And it would be the insurers of the clubs at the time they were playing that would be liable, regardless of when the ill-effects present themselves.  It is no defence for RL to say 'we didn't know about it', if there are published proven studies from the era in question.  Ignorance isn't a defence.

It will be up to the barristers involved to prove negligence, including the existance of evidence at the time, then it will be an argument with the insurer as to whether their specific policy excludes this issue.

However it pans out, it will take years.  It's similar in many ways to the issues caused by asbestos, in that it presents decades after exposure.  Although I would imaging in this case, causality will be much harder to prove.

Its also a classic no win no fee case. I can totally see why, financially if very dubiously moralistically, this is appealing for some players.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

The 53 allegations raised by the Claimants include the failure by the Defendant to:

Allow, sanction, tolerate, and oversee rugby matches that proceeded without any or any proper or appropriate regard for the safety of players as regards head contacts.

And this is where we can go back to Nick Fozzard and his tweets.

He has stated with absolute clarity that he acted outside of the laws of the game and deliberately attacked a player's head to inflict harm and now part of the claim is that the RFL tolerated such actions.  That for me is really poor.

  • Like 4

"The history of the world is the history of the triumph of the heartless over the mindless." — Sir Humphrey Appleby.

"If someone doesn't value evidence, what evidence are you going to provide to prove that they should value it? If someone doesn't value logic, what logical argument could you provide to show the importance of logic?" — Sam Harris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Its also a classic no win no fee case. I can totally see why, financially if very dubiously moralistically, this is appealing for some players.

And suits the legal firms, regardless of how long it takes.  It doesn't matter to them if the litigant is no longer with us, they still get their cut, should it be successful.  And of course, if one is successful, they have an income stream for years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

From Love RL:

The 53 allegations raised by the Claimants include the failure by the Defendant to:

  • Allow, sanction, tolerate, and oversee rugby matches that proceeded without any or any proper or appropriate regard for the safety of players as regards head contacts.
  • Ensure that a properly qualified individual was in charge of the treatment of head injuries within the sport and the systems, protocols and enforcement that related to the same.
  • Improperly, negligently, and unquestioningly rely on the advice of Paul McCrory, who has since been found guilty of multiple counts of plagiarism and gave an undertaking in 2018 to the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency not to perform neurodiagnostic procedures.
  • Respond to changes in the intensity and physicality of the game of rugby league over the course of the 1980s and 90s through the adaptation of rules, protocols, guidance, officiating or at all.
  • Allow young players from the age of 16 to play professional or semi-professional rugby league with adults in circumstances where they were not fully developed.
  • Introduce independent concussion spotters in a timely fashion.
  • Institute independent pitch-side medics leading to over-reliance on club medics who are heavily conflicted.
  • Be negligently inactive in relation to head and neck injuries, concussions, sub-concussions and long-term neurological harm arising in or from the sport it governed.

 

I assume this is Love RL's wording and there aren't actual claims for:

failure by the Defendant to... ...Improperly, negligently, and unquestioningly rely on the advice of Paul McCrory, who has since been found guilty of multiple counts of plagiarism and gave an undertaking in 2018 to the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency not to perform neurodiagnostic procedures.

failure by the Defendant to... ...Allow young players from the age of 16 to play professional or semi-professional rugby league with adults in circumstances where they were not fully developed.

or

failure by the Defendant to... ...Be negligently inactive in relation to head and neck injuries, concussions, sub-concussions and long-term neurological harm arising in or from the sport it governed.

Those are three things I'd be happy to fail at!

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Dunbar said:

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

To take an extreme example as a response.

If I set up a fairground ride but don't have the money to properly test the roller coaster or put in the proper safety equipment then I don't get to say, sometime later, as the burning wreckage of the roller coaster tumbles behind me, that I'd have been a lot better at this not killing my customers lark if only I had had more money like Disneyland.

  • Like 1

Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. (Terry Pratchett)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Tommygilf said:

You also seem to be shifting the argument somewhat onto whether the RFL ought to have known more, and therefore done more, on this issue; rather than whether they did actually know. That is an interesting tangent, I'm sure one that the lawyers will be exploring in both the cases against the RFL and RFU, but I'm not sure it is a very strong secondary argument either. 

What people/organisations should have known and/or should reasonably be expected to have known is a straightforward point that you'll find in most similar cases to this.

I should add that I think the RFL will 'win' this whilst also believing that, as a sport, we remain far too lax on players who deliberately set out to cause injury (whether they would admit they are doing that or not) but we are much improved on many other aspects from even a decade or so ago.

Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. (Terry Pratchett)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

To take an extreme example as a response.

If I set up a fairground ride but don't have the money to properly test the roller coaster or put in the proper safety equipment then I don't get to say, sometime later, as the burning wreckage of the roller coaster tumbles behind me, that I'd have been a lot better at this not killing my customers lark if only I had had more money like Disneyland.

This example of a fairground ride is one where there is legislation in place and where the dangers of improperly installed rides is known by all.

We are talking about whether the governing body had the resources and expertise to know of the dangers at the time.

It is a poor example to say the least.

"The history of the world is the history of the triumph of the heartless over the mindless." — Sir Humphrey Appleby.

"If someone doesn't value evidence, what evidence are you going to provide to prove that they should value it? If someone doesn't value logic, what logical argument could you provide to show the importance of logic?" — Sam Harris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, gingerjon said:

What people/organisations should have known and/or should reasonably be expected to have known is a straightforward point that you'll find in most similar cases to this.

I should add that I think the RFL will 'win' this whilst also believing that, as a sport, we remain far too lax on players who deliberately set out to cause injury (whether they would admit they are doing that or not) but we are much improved on many other aspects from even a decade or so ago.

I totally understand the reasonably expected to know point, I just don't think it is valid in the timeframe being set out. 

I think the RFL will win too.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

And this is where we can go back to Nick Fozzard and his tweets.

He has stated with absolute clarity that he acted outside of the laws of the game and deliberately attacked a player's head to inflict harm and now part of the claim is that the RFL tolerated such actions.  That for me is really poor.

Quite, and this is why it is hard to take the moralistic "we're here to protect future players" argument seriously.

I was one of those future players. I can bet my house on the fact that if Fozzard had come up against me in my playing days he would have delighted in demonstrating his physical superiority in a way that showed no respect for my welfare. 

He and the rest are looking for a no win no fee quick buck. Fair enough to them, but don't make it out to be something it isn't.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Quite, and this is why it is hard to take the moralistic "we're here to protect future players" argument seriously.

I was one of those future players. I can bet my house on the fact that if Fozzard had come up against me in my playing days he would have delighted in demonstrating his physical superiority in a way that showed no respect for my welfare. 

He and the rest are looking for a no win no fee quick buck. Fair enough to them, but don't make it out to be something it isn't.

So ... you're saying that the game tolerated Nick Fozzard and his padded arm whacking players in the head?

Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. (Terry Pratchett)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

We are talking about whether the governing body had the resources and expertise to know of the dangers at the time.

And, where we disagree, is that I don't think, in the case of a national sports governing body, that "oooo, we're poor" really stacks up as anything other than a pathetic excuse for not being good enough.

Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. (Terry Pratchett)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

And, where we disagree, is that I don't think, in the case of a national sports governing body, that "oooo, we're poor" really stacks up as anything other than a pathetic excuse for not being good enough.

You don't think there is a correlation between how much capital an organisation has and how much it can invest in the resources needed to lead in an area of this type of specialism?

We can argue all we want about whether the RFL did enough or not but having the funding available to invest in such matters is at least part of the equation.  There are entire departments of multi-billion businesses set up to do these things - and you think that the RFL should have been able to match them... through what means? 

  • Like 2

"The history of the world is the history of the triumph of the heartless over the mindless." — Sir Humphrey Appleby.

"If someone doesn't value evidence, what evidence are you going to provide to prove that they should value it? If someone doesn't value logic, what logical argument could you provide to show the importance of logic?" — Sam Harris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

I'm saying I don't buy that he gives a toss about other players.

Well, we can definitely agree on that.

  • Like 1

Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. (Terry Pratchett)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

There are entire departments of multi-billion businesses set up to do these things - and you think that the RFL should have been able to match them... through what means? 

Where have I said that?

If, for example, a club can't afford to have a medical cover at the ground then the match doesn't go ahead. We all understand this. The medical cover does not need to be a team of Harley Street specialists, just the right number of qualified people.

I have merely said that the RFL, as the national governing body of a sport, cannot get out of any obligations, or defend past failings, saying, "Well, we were a bit skint so we thought we wouldn't bother with that."

If you can't meet your obligations then you don't get to continue.

 

 

  • Like 1

Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. (Terry Pratchett)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

Where have I said that?

If, for example, a club can't afford to have a medical cover at the ground then the match doesn't go ahead. We all understand this. The medical cover does not need to be a team of Harley Street specialists, just the right number of qualified people.

I have merely said that the RFL, as the national governing body of a sport, cannot get out of any obligations, or defend past failings, saying, "Well, we were a bit skint so we thought we wouldn't bother with that."

If you can't meet your obligations then you don't get to continue.

 

 

I guess my point is that the RFL are following the best practice on head protocols now (at least we are assuming they are).  And this is because the field is much more developed and we know that HIA processes can detect concussion incidents even when it is mot entriely obvious.  And we can track and manage the longer term health of our players.

I think where our disagreement is rooted is that you keep saying that the RFL 'should' have known more than they did... you don't specify what they should have known or when, just that they should have known more.  And my reposonse is when and how should they have known more.

 

  • Like 2

"The history of the world is the history of the triumph of the heartless over the mindless." — Sir Humphrey Appleby.

"If someone doesn't value evidence, what evidence are you going to provide to prove that they should value it? If someone doesn't value logic, what logical argument could you provide to show the importance of logic?" — Sam Harris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

I guess my point is that the RFL are following the best practice on head protocols now (at least we are assuming they are).  And this is because the field is much more developed and we know that HIA processes can detect concussion incidents even when it is mot entriely obvious.  And we can track and manage the longer term health of our players.

I think where our disagreement is rooted is that you keep saying that the RFL 'should' have known more than they did... you don't specify what they should have known or when, just that they should have known more.  And my reposonse is when and how should they have known more.

 

No. I am saying that it isn’t as simple as did they know or not know, there is a question, as there always is, of what they could be reasonably expected to have known.

Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. (Terry Pratchett)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, gingerjon said:

No. I am saying that it isn’t as simple as did they know or not know, there is a question, as there always is, of what they could be reasonably expected to have known.

And isn't the capital they had and therefore the level of expertise they could afford to have employed or commissioned part of what they 'reasonably expected to have known'?

"The history of the world is the history of the triumph of the heartless over the mindless." — Sir Humphrey Appleby.

"If someone doesn't value evidence, what evidence are you going to provide to prove that they should value it? If someone doesn't value logic, what logical argument could you provide to show the importance of logic?" — Sam Harris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

And isn't the capital they had and therefore the level of expertise they could afford to have employed or commissioned part of what they 'reasonably expected to have known'?

Given that at the time it was a research intensive field with not a lot of studies (and that they have subsequently engaged with studies in the game and drawn on others), I find it a weak argument too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Tommygilf said:

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

I'm not referring to the MRP grades in the slightest here. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Damien said:

 

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.

I agree with this. But it is important to look past Fozzard's 'provocative' language (I'll use that to be nice to him). I don't believe that the RFL will have hidden findings etc - but would you be surprised if they were slow to act and implement things?

Now to be fair, I'm not one that thinks everything the RFL does is rubbish, so I do hope that actually they did take this seriously, can clearly document and evidence that, and demonstrate that there was no clear neglect.

The RFL are a bit of a weird one - in some areas they can be industry-leading - in others, they are pretty passive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.