Nick Fozzard getting dragged on Twitter

[The Masked Poster]

2 hours ago, Dave T said:

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. 

I'm sure it won't come to that but when people or organisations are put in these situations, they can use any fall guy that is available. 

They might argue that they warned the refs but it was ignored, possibly due to club pressure. They won't be erased from blame because as you point out, they should have dealt with it stricter but how many times have we seen an employee become the fall guy for a big companies problem? I've personally witnessed it happen myself. 

People are often thrown under the bus if it means someone else's ###### will be saved. 

[Wakefield Ram]

5 hours 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? 

The laws on high tackles aren't enforced. Watch any game and there's lots of contact with the head going unpenalised.

The RFL tried to crack down beginning of last season but as soon as players started getting sent off, the coaches complained and it was dropped.

[Wakefield Ram]

3 hours ago, Dave T said:

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. 

Refs are employees of the RFL, so no defence.

[The Masked Poster]

3 minutes ago, Wakefield Ram said:

Refs are employees of the RFL, so no defence.

You're still liable under H&S regardless of whether you are an employee or own the company. If it was argued that referees contributed to the lack of care (re head injury) then they might be in the firing line too. 

[Wakefield Ram]

42 minutes ago, The Masked Poster said:

You're still liable under H&S regardless of whether you are an employee or own the company. If it was argued that referees contributed to the lack of care (re head injury) then they might be in the firing line too. 

True, just saying that the RFL couldn't just blame the refs. 

[Dunbar]

2 hours ago, Wakefield Ram said:

The RFL tried to crack down beginning of last season but as soon as players started getting sent off, the coaches complained and it was dropped.

And the players, past and present, complained as well.

[The Masked Poster]

2 hours ago, Wakefield Ram said:

True, just saying that the RFL couldn't just blame the refs. 

Yes and I don't think they should. I'm just pointing out that these things always have unforeseen effects. 

[The Masked Poster]

42 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

And the players, past and present, complained as well.

Correct. 

Which all contributed to the "keep playing regardless" ethos that was so prevalent for so long. 

[Dunbar]

24 minutes ago, The Masked Poster said:

Correct. 

Which all contributed to the "keep playing regardless" ethos that was so prevalent for so long. 

It must be relatively unique for legislation to protect employees to be resisted so much by the actual people the legislation is designed to protect.

You would be hard pressed to find another sector that reacted in this way.

[Padge]

5 hours ago, Wakefield Ram said:

Refs are employees of the RFL, so no defence.

That is only a recent state of affairs. Refs only turned professional in 2007 and that is a limited number.

 

[The Blues Ox]

Its worth noting in the discussion regarding refs enforcing the law that most concussions are not as a result of head high tackles, infact its on the rare side.

[RP London]

How can you throw refs under the bus when a large part of the argument is about the care given, the training, rest etc. Its about knowledge of the problem and mitigating the risk. That's across the whole working spectrum not just game day. The emphasis on game say is missing a massive chunck of the argument being made. 

[gingerjon]

23 minutes ago, RP London said:

How can you throw refs under the bus when a large part of the argument is about the care given, the training, rest etc. Its about knowledge of the problem and mitigating the risk. That's across the whole working spectrum not just game day. The emphasis on game say is missing a massive chunck of the argument being made. 

The idea that the RFL who trained, monitored, appointed, reviewed, instructed (etc) the refs would be able to dilute its responsibility by pointing to the refs' actions is certainly an interesting one.

[RP London]

35 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

The idea that the RFL who trained, monitored, appointed, reviewed, instructed (etc) the refs would be able to dilute its responsibility by pointing to the refs' actions is certainly an interesting one.

Exactly, this is a case against the governing bodies for the knowledge they had and the processes they put in place to mitigate the risk. If they are asking the refs to do something and the refs are not doing it then that is not on the ref because that is one game (and this case is about years) the RFL will then still be liable because they did not review and deal with that ref. 

In the end if it fall on the ref then it will fall on coaches and other players... but that would be daft wouldnt it? because its up to the RFL to discipline those players when they step out of line. Put in the H&S world, it is down to the individual to look after themselves as much as the company. The company is liable for making sure people are aware and that they are in a safe workspace but if they do something stupid/outside of those regulations it is not on the company (in that instance at least) but if it happened a few times and the HSE looked at the records and found the company had not acted the first time then the company is going to be in a much more difficult position. If the RFL/RFU tried to pin it on individuals (refs etc) then it will quickly turn back round on the lack of control of those individuals IMHO.

[RP London]

This is a holistic game wide case/set of cases. we had a trademark battle we had with another company (they were trying to trademark a product we had both been making for over 100 years) and they continually focussed on company history and the "story" rather than the law. We kept being told by our lawyers to concentrate on the actual law, arguing who originated the product and who was older etc was irrelevant because all you had to prove was x length of time using it (cant remember what it was).. we won because we could prove it, as could they, so they threw out their claim for the trademark.

I feel that we are doing very similar to this arguing the minutiae of the laws of the game and the reffing of the game when, when you read the articles and watch  the interviews, an awful lot of what underpins these cases is the other 6 days a week training, the game recovery and (most importantly) concussion protocols and recovery. IF the sports knew more about concussion and sub concussive injuries and did not put the protocols in place to aid recovery from them, to take them off the pitch when they knew or suspected they had them rather than say "get up and play on, your a man!!" then they are in trouble. If the coaches, who plan training, were not told this information by the governing bodies and not told to cut training etc then its on the governing bodies, if they were and didn't do it its on the coaches which could be interesting..

In the end, and why these cases will rumble on for quite a while its going to come down to what information was widley known, what information was known by the governing bodies, what actions were taken to mitigate the risks and, most importantly, were the processes that were put in place to mitigate the risk in line with the general medical knowledge and advice given and known at the time. If they were then this case isnt going to go anywhere, if they werent then they are liable, it'll then come down to how liable. That will include how the Refs acted, how they were instructed to act etc for sure but it is one very small part of a much larger picture. 

The likes of Nick Fozzard may have been a dirty head hunter but may also be a victim of being bashed around and not cared for afterwards during training etc but also the fact he talks of it being "legal" (which it wasnt) shows he wasnt disciplined hard enough to get through his head that it wasnt and that is as much on the RFL as it is on him.. the fact he glorifies some of the stuff he did rather than being just a tad ashamed with the knowledge we now all have (and the situation he find himself in) tends to speak volumes of the man IMHO

[Wakefield Ram]

12 hours ago, Padge said:

That is only a recent state of affairs. Refs only turned professional in 2007 and that is a limited number.

 

They were still paid as semi-professionals. 

[Wakefield Ram]

16 hours ago, Dunbar said:

And the players, past and present, complained as well.

Remarkable when you think about it. Even now, knowing the risks of brain injury they all complained about an initiative aimed to reduce the risk of them becoming brain damaged. 

[RP London]

53 minutes ago, Wakefield Ram said:

Remarkable when you think about it. Even now, knowing the risks of brain injury they all complained about an initiative aimed to reduce the risk of them becoming brain damaged. 

yep. I still cant quite get my head around that.. put in sensible disciplinary to sort out the quality and height of the tackles and the players complain.. get hit around the head a few times and the player responsible doesn't get disciplined and they complain.. If only we had a governing body that had some bottle and said, "bear with it and if you all sort out your tackle technique you wont be getting hit around the head and you wont be getting banned either".. 

[Padge]

7 hours ago, Wakefield Ram said:

They were still paid as semi-professionals. 

They were not employed by the RFL, they were in effect freelance and paid a match fee and expenses.

[The Blues Ox]

Which bit about head high tackles not been anywhere near the main cause of concussion are people missing?

[Dunbar]

2 hours ago, The Blues Ox said:

Which bit about head high tackles not been anywhere near the main cause of concussion are people missing?

I don't think it is that people are missing it.  It is just that there are a couple of implications when high contact (or any foul play) is not the main cause of concussion. 

1. When most concussions are incurred through normal play, it is much more difficult to prove that any 'tolerance' from the RFL on high contact is a main driver for the effects ex players are suffering. 

2. And this means that it isn't game play that is the focus of the claim and rather the protocols or behaviour around players continuing to play with concussive incidents.  This may be much harder to prove.

It is probably just easier for people to focus on the illegal actions when, in reality, it is actually the very nature of the game played legally that is the main cause of concussion.

[The Masked Poster]

It’s almost irrelevant what happened during those past games (ie head shots or just wear and tear on the head) the fact is that a certain referee(s) will have been in charge of those games and players X & Y will claim that he is now suffering due to playing in those matches reffed by those people. (And I’m not saying that they don’t deserve a hearing or deserve sympathy)

Thus, whether we like it or not, the refs *could* potentially be dragged into this. Do I agree? No but legal arguments can lead to unexpected twists. I’m not saying it will btw. 

[The Blues Ox]

11 hours ago, Dunbar said:

I don't think it is that people are missing it.  It is just that there are a couple of implications when high contact (or any foul play) is not the main cause of concussion. 

1. When most concussions are incurred through normal play, it is much more difficult to prove that any 'tolerance' from the RFL on high contact is a main driver for the effects ex players are suffering. 

2. And this means that it isn't game play that is the focus of the claim and rather the protocols or behaviour around players continuing to play with concussive incidents.  This may be much harder to prove.

It is probably just easier for people to focus on the illegal actions when, in reality, it is actually the very nature of the game played legally that is the main cause of concussion.

Agree with all that which is why I am not sure why people are focussing on high tackles/ref's/Fozzards attacks to the head. The claim is almost certainly centred around the protocols or lack of them that the RFl had in place.

[Dunbar]

21 minutes ago, The Blues Ox said:

Agree with all that which is why I am not sure why people are focussing on high tackles/ref's/Fozzards attacks to the head. The claim is almost certainly centred around the protocols or lack of them that the RFl had in place.

Personally I feel there is a level of hypocrisy in Fozzard's posts that don't sit well.  Admitting (almost basking) that he deliberately inflicted harm on another player by attacking his head is not the ideal starting point for winning public support for a case regarding head injury. 

It has little to do with the case in hand, it just irks.

Edited April 21, 2023 by Dunbar

[The Masked Poster]

15 minutes ago, The Blues Ox said:

Agree with all that which is why I am not sure why people are focussing on high tackles/ref's/Fozzards attacks to the head. The claim is almost certainly centred around the protocols or lack of them that the RFl had in place.

Because they can have all the protocols in the world but if people don't follow them, the people not following them can be liable too. Yes the RFL would be in the frame for not ensuring they were followed but the individuals who didn't (for whatever reason) instill a culture of "player safety first" might also find themselves in the frame.

Imagine we work in a factory that produces bricks and they are stored on huge pallets, in stacks. Someone moves the bottom pallet and they fall over, unfortunately killing someone. The company almost certainly has a H&S protocol for not doing that but do you think they will not be held responsible? As well as the person doing the moving? Maybe the forklift operator who put them there too? 

I'm not really arguing with you here, just pointing out that this can become a very complicated issue and others get dragged in who might think of themselves completely clear.