Nick Fozzard getting dragged on Twitter

[gingerjon]

2 hours 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'?

No. Not remotely.

[Dave T]

Does anyone know when the RFL first introduced stricter rules around concussion etc? Are there any articles about our approach. 

As an outsider it looks like we have high profile formal rules in place, further strengthened this year with things like 18th man, but what did it look like in 2005 for example?

[Dunbar]

13 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

No. Not remotely.

Budgets don't remotely effect how much time, effort and resources organisations can invest into various operational elements.

That is your stance?

[gingerjon]

15 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

Budgets don't remotely effect how much time, effort and resources organisations can invest into various operational elements.

That is your stance?

No. That is not my stance.

My stance is that how much time, effort, money (etc) you invest is irrelevant if the outcome of that is that you do not do something that you should reasonably be expected to have done.

It's an excuse for not doing it. But not a valid reason in a case like this.

If someone is hit from a light falling from the roof of the stand the investigation isn't going to go, "You know what, fine" if your line is that rugby league doesn't have much money to invest in safety when it needs to pay players beer money.

[Tommygilf]

48 minutes ago, Dave T said:

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

What other actions taken "in the last 2 years" do you mean then?

[Dave T]

3 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

What other actions taken "in the last 2 years" do you mean then?

Union have gone in a very different direction to Rugby League on the tackle. It's certainly not a direction I'd like us to go in, but I assume we all have the same data, but we have very different approaches. 

[Dunbar]

16 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

No. That is not my stance.

My stance is that how much time, effort, money (etc) you invest is irrelevant if the outcome of that is that you do not do something that you should reasonably be expected to have done.

It's an excuse for not doing it. But not a valid reason in a case like this.

If someone is hit from a light falling from the roof of the stand the investigation isn't going to go, "You know what, fine" if your line is that rugby league doesn't have much money to invest in safety when it needs to pay players beer money.

Sorry, I just don't understand your thinking at all.

Your examples - fairground rides, lights falling from ceilings - are all examples of negligence in an area where there is established protocols, policy and law.

This was (and still is) an emerging field.  You keep saying that 'they' should have been reasonably expected to have done something and then you say the budget required to research and implement any changes is absolutely irrelevant.

To my mind, this doesn't make any sense.

[Tommygilf]

50 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Does anyone know when the RFL first introduced stricter rules around concussion etc? Are there any articles about our approach. 

As an outsider it looks like we have high profile formal rules in place, further strengthened this year with things like 18th man, but what did it look like in 2005 for example?

Had a look into this and this Dr Paul McRory chap keeps coming up. He was involved at the RFL specifically from 2002 but was also chair of the BJSM.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/rugby-league/stars-suing-rugby-league-accuse-28249296?int_source=amp_continue_reading&int_medium=amp&int_campaign=continue_reading_button#amp-readmore-target

It seems his work has formed the basis since that time for football, union and League on concussion protocols and they have evolved from there.

His work has faced plagiarism accusations and he has been disgraced in the field.

Nevertheless, at the time of the rewriting of protocols in the early 2000s, it seems he was considered the preeminent figure across a range of top level sport, and was engaged by the RFL directly. That such faith was misplaced, if only initially as the protocols have developed since then, seems to be the main thread of the claim.

[Tommygilf]

21 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Union have gone in a very different direction to Rugby League on the tackle. It's certainly not a direction I'd like us to go in, but I assume we all have the same data, but we have very different approaches. 

They have tried to, we'll see how that actually works in implementation - and indeed anecdotally as stated by many on here, their policy will likely make things worse for defenders heads.

[Damien]

6 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Had a look into this and this Dr Paul McRory chap keeps coming up. He was involved at the RFL specifically from 2002 but was also chair of the BJSM.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/rugby-league/stars-suing-rugby-league-accuse-28249296?int_source=amp_continue_reading&int_medium=amp&int_campaign=continue_reading_button#amp-readmore-target

It seems his work has formed the basis since that time for football, union and League on concussion protocols and they have evolved from there.

His work has faced plagiarism accusations and he has been disgraced in the field.

Nevertheless, at the time of the rewriting of protocols in the early 2000s, it seems he was considered the preeminent figure across a range of top level sport, and was engaged by the RFL directly. That such faith was misplaced, if only initially as the protocols have developed since then, seems to be the main thread of the claim.

And this is the point I've made a few times. If the RFL took medical advice from a leading medical figure, that was trusted by some of the largest governing bodies in the UK, then they taking reasonable precautions to protect players. That medical opinion being shown as flawed by later research is hardly the RFL's fault. 

[The Masked Poster]

I can remember the GB series in the early 2000's. I think it was GB v Australia but it might have been NZ. Paul Deacon was taken from the field and the team doctor (Chris Brookes?) likened his injury to being in a car crash. 

I remember being impressed at that and thinking how tough the players were. (Which they are) 

This was pretty much the mentality of the game, rightly or wrongly. Can we as fans claim we didn't encourage it? Perhaps we are part of the reason it was like it was?

I can remember watching RL games with non RL people and a fight broke out. Some of them were shocked asked why everyone wasn't sent off. So not everyone felt like we did. 

[lucky 7]

10 hours ago, Dave T said:

I bet they don't. 

They will . He's admitted to being a thug in black and white

[lucky 7]

9 hours ago, The Blues Ox said:

This has started to happen more now in that some clubs do help young players just in case they don't make it but go back 10 years or so and it was very rare.

They won't. What if Fozzard has medical evidence of a longterm brain injury that contributed to how he acted on the field? 

He was one of the biggest thugs going and he's admitted it

[The Blues Ox]

14 minutes ago, lucky 7 said:

He was one of the biggest thugs going and he's admitted it

The point I am trying to make although it is specualtion as we do not have access to medical records, but his actions on the field could be down in part to a brain injury. Research in to CTE has extreme agression as one of the symptoms. Rather than building a case against Fozzard it is entirely plausible that his case could be enhanced by some of the things people seem to think will hurt it.

[The Blues Ox]

Just having a nosey on the web and using ChatGPT, I am amazed at how many studies there were in the late 90's and early 2000's around concussion in rugby and other contact sports. One of the things that does stand out is that at some point a 3 week rest period was introuced as to give people chance to recover from concussion( I remember similar in RL but not the exact time frame) and it goes on to say how people would avoid declaring a concussion because of this rest period which then made the problem worse.

[The Blues Ox]

An AI Agent gives its thought on the RFL concussion process in the early 2000's.  1 of 3.

[The Blues Ox]

[The Blues Ox]

[Wakefield Ram]

On 13/04/2023 at 22:05, 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. 

I wonder what all the critics would do if they were suffering from early onset dementia and likely to leave their wife and young kids without a husband and a dad? Just shrug their shoulders and say "ah well"? And this is just the start. These are the first cohort of players to have played their full careers as full-time players with 10m rule. There will be hundreds if not thousands more.

And aside from the HIA and return to play protocol (after concussion) little has changed. Still unlimited contact training, high tackles every game with little sanction, ball carriers leading with their forearm, players coached to tackle high risking head clashes, still 10m rather than the old 5m rule....so basically nothing to prevent the original concussion happening. 

So the RFL are still wide open to being sued even now. Limit contact training, MRI scans for players (like boxing) and a proper clampdown on high tackles. Only in RL is the idea that sending players off for inflicting brain injury on an opponent could be seen as "spoiling the game".

 

Edited April 19, 2023 by Wakefield Ram

[The Masked Poster]

35 minutes ago, Wakefield Ram said:

I wonder what all the critics would do if they were suffering from early onset dementia and likely to leave their wife and young kids without a husband and a dad? Just shrug their shoulders and say "ah well"? And this is just the start. These are the first cohort of players to have played their full careers as full-time players with 10m rule. There will be hundreds if not thousands more.

And aside from the HIA and return to play protocol (after concussion) little has changed. Still unlimited contact training, high tackles every game with little sanction, ball carriers leading with their forearm, players coached to tackle high risking head clashes, still 10m rather than the old 5m rule....so basically nothing to prevent the original concussion happening. 

So the RFL are still wide open to being sued even now. Limit contact training, MRI scans for players (like boxing) and a proper clampdown on high tackles. Only in RL is the idea that sending players off for inflicting brain injury on an opponent could be seen as "spoiling the game".

 

Yes but we've had laws against head shots for some time. 

In the workplace, under H&S legislation, we are legally responsible for the health of others as well as ourselves. Thus if I commit a dangerous act that results in injury or even death to another person, I would be in the dock, not the company. 

With this in mind, this would surely leave the referees open to accusations of neglect too? They were after all, the ones who didn't implement the laws of the game in a strict enough manner. And this is whether or not fans or coaches complained, that was their role. 

Where does this end? 

[Dave T]

1 hour ago, The Masked Poster said:

Yes but we've had laws against head shots for some time. 

In the workplace, under H&S legislation, we are legally responsible for the health of others as well as ourselves. Thus if I commit a dangerous act that results in injury or even death to another person, I would be in the dock, not the company. 

With this in mind, this would surely leave the referees open to accusations of neglect too? They were after all, the ones who didn't implement the laws of the game in a strict enough manner. And this is whether or not fans or coaches complained, that was their role. 

Where does this end? 

We don't need to keep using these kind of examples. Dangerous activity is allowed. I keep mentioning boxing and MMA but they are good examples - sports where the aim is to try and knock the person unconscious (maybe not the stated aim admittedly!).

The issue here is around whether the governing body and employers had adequate processes and procedures in place and that they were followed. Having laws against head shots which involve them being illegal on the field of play and leading to individual punishments is an example of a process/policy that the game has in place in this area.

But on referees, I would expect that the RFL would point to the rulebook, the coaching provided to refs, and the action taken against refs who are not up to scratch.

I expect in most areas the RFL would absolutely be able to dig out a policy and process to cover themselves.

[The Masked Poster]

3 minutes ago, Dave T said:

We don't need to keep using these kind of examples. Dangerous activity is allowed. I keep mentioning boxing and MMA but they are good examples - sports where the aim is to try and knock the person unconscious (maybe not the stated aim admittedly!).

The issue here is around whether the governing body and employers had adequate processes and procedures in place and that they were followed. Having laws against head shots which involve them being illegal on the field of play and leading to individual punishments is an example of a process/policy that the game has in place in this area.

But on referees, I would expect that the RFL would point to the rulebook, the coaching provided to refs, and the action taken against refs who are not up to scratch.

I expect in most areas the RFL would absolutely be able to dig out a policy and process to cover themselves.

Surely though, the RFL could simply point out that they did take precautions over the players well being but the referees didn't enforce it. This relates to a company having a very safe work environment and individuals not following their SOPs. I've seen it happen numerous times and the people have been sacked without a leg to stand on. 

There will be dozens of examples where say, NF was involved in head shots but not sent off. They could maybe use these as examples of the refs not being strict enough. (I'm not criticising the refs, purely using it as a theoretical argument) 

[gingerjon]

2 hours ago, Wakefield Ram said:

I wonder what all the critics would do if they were suffering from early onset dementia and likely to leave their wife and young kids without a husband and a dad? Just shrug their shoulders and say "ah well"? And this is just the start. These are the first cohort of players to have played their full careers as full-time players with 10m rule. There will be hundreds if not thousands more.

And aside from the HIA and return to play protocol (after concussion) little has changed. Still unlimited contact training, high tackles every game with little sanction, ball carriers leading with their forearm, players coached to tackle high risking head clashes, still 10m rather than the old 5m rule....so basically nothing to prevent the original concussion happening. 

So the RFL are still wide open to being sued even now. Limit contact training, MRI scans for players (like boxing) and a proper clampdown on high tackles. Only in RL is the idea that sending players off for inflicting brain injury on an opponent could be seen as "spoiling the game".

 

The first line of the last paragraph is spot on. And it is the lack of movement in response to what is known now that (entirely IMO) will make it hard for the RFL to show that they have ever taken appropriate steps.

I still think they will “win” because the case appears to be too broad to be provable .

[Dunbar]

Just on the unlimited contact in training.

Can anyone with insight into a professional outfits training week tell us how much full contact there is in training?

I know it is an issue in Union but to be fair that is a different game with various elements practiced that involve contact (scrummaging and clean out/protection at the ruck) that simply don't exist in our game.

If we are saying that the sport still has full contact training then this is tackling at game intensity.  I would like to know how much of this actually tales place... as opposed to strength, conditioning, skills practice, game management, running plays etc etc.

Edited April 19, 2023 by Dunbar

[Dave T]

40 minutes ago, The Masked Poster said:

Surely though, the RFL could simply point out that they did take precautions over the players well being but the referees didn't enforce it. This relates to a company having a very safe work environment and individuals not following their SOPs. I've seen it happen numerous times and the people have been sacked without a leg to stand on. 

There will be dozens of examples where say, NF was involved in head shots but not sent off. They could maybe use these as examples of the refs not being strict enough. (I'm not criticising the refs, purely using it as a theoretical argument) 

I'd be surprised if the RFL's defence is to throw refs under the bus. 

It also wouldn't be a good defence as you would have to show you took action against these dysfunctional refs.