Nick Fozzard getting dragged on Twitter

[Damien]

2 hours ago, Dunbar said:

This article says two separate suits:

https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/rugby/rugby-union/world-rugby-brain-injury-lawsuit-concussion-b2300336.html

Rylands Garth represents over 250 rugby union players with brain damage in total, including England World Cup winner Steve Thompson and former Wales captain Ryan Jones, as well as 100 rugby league players, as part of a separate but similar potential claim against the RFL.

It makes zero sense to be any other way as different sports have different procedures and rules. One sport may be doing everything perfectly, the other not, and you cant just sue them all together.

[RP London]

9 minutes ago, Damien said:

You made a claim, obviously based on RU, and proceeded to quote an RU player based on training in a completely different sport. Absolutely pointless.

I have known various professional players and that is what I am basing my comments on. They are people I trust and I believe them when they tell me what training sessions are like. You continue to base your opinion of how much contact there is in Rugby League training on RU and RU players though.

There is no "claim" i readily admitted it was an over exageration..

I've known pros too and had conversations..  funny how mine back up what I have read and yours don't..  

I have little ru knowledge on this I go by what I have read and watched and listened too from those involved in the case (RL too) as its their experience that is the most important in this.

The claim from the RU player is based on the fact I believed they were joint cases. If they are not then fair enough but I have seen and heard similar comments made by the RL players too on various podcasts and interviews.. so no it's not based around RU... 

But it's OK you all keep worrying about the ref and not the crux of the issue which is care and training and the lawyers and players have said it time and time again..  if you want to believe those involved rather than random ex pros you know. 

[Damien]

45 minutes ago, RP London said:

There is no "claim" i readily admitted it was an over exageration..

I've known pros too and had conversations..  funny how mine back up what I have read and yours don't..  

I have little ru knowledge on this I go by what I have read and watched and listened too from those involved in the case (RL too) as its their experience that is the most important in this.

The claim from the RU player is based on the fact I believed they were joint cases. If they are not then fair enough but I have seen and heard similar comments made by the RL players too on various podcasts and interviews.. so no it's not based around RU... 

But it's OK you all keep worrying about the ref and not the crux of the issue which is care and training and the lawyers and players have said it time and time again..  if you want to believe those involved rather than random ex pros you know. 

I have not mentioned the ref, not once, so have no idea what you are talking about.

What I and others replied to was your claims about 20 contact sessions a week and this being a joint claim. If you wish to exaggerate and make things up to suit your argument then that is up to you. Don't be surprised though if others disagree and call you out on it. I certainly dont agree with some of what you say in this post and think your comments regarding ex-pros are nonsense. However as you exaggerate and make stuff up its pointless continuing this. Lets leave it at that.

[Dave T]

5 hours ago, DI Keith Fowler said:

I mean what does contact session even mean? Does it include wrestling which the players do a lot of? The chances of getting a brain injury from that seems negligible. 

I think wrestling would absolutely be classed as contact training. I expect if you are ruled out with concussion you are not wrestling in training. 

[Dunbar]

There was an incident in last night's Castleford HKR game when a penalty was given for an upright tackle and a serious clash of heads.  The recipient of the tackle was on the ground for some time and had to leave the field for a HIA (I didn't see if he returned).  I tried to start a conversation on the thread but here may be a better place.  A couple of points.

1. Is this a penalty? The laws state that reckless or careless contact with the head while executing a tackle is misconduct.  It can easily be argued that a tackler clashing heads at force is reckless.  Others will say it is an accident.  The majority of posters and the commentators felt it wasn't a penalty.

2. Research clearly shows that the upright tackling prevalent in Rugby League increases the chance of head injury considerably.  One of the key studies showed that there was a 3.2-fold higher risk for an HIA when the tackler was upright compared to bent-at-the-waist.

I am not advocating for a change, merely garnering opinion.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8599744/

 

[Dave T]

27 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

There was an incident in last night's Castleford HKR game when a penalty was given for an upright tackle and a serious clash of heads.  The recipient of the tackle was on the ground for some time and had to leave the field for a HIA (I didn't see if he returned).  I tried to start a conversation on the thread but here may be a better place.  A couple of points.

1. Is this a penalty? The laws state that reckless or careless contact with the head while executing a tackle is misconduct.  It can easily be argued that a tackler clashing heads at force is reckless.  Others will say it is an accident.  The majority of posters and the commentators felt it wasn't a penalty.

2. Research clearly shows that the upright tackling prevalent in Rugby League increases the chance of head injury considerably.  One of the key studies showed that there was a 3.2-fold higher risk for an HIA when the tackler was upright compared to bent-at-the-waist.

I am not advocating for a change, merely garnering opinion.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8599744/

 

I touched on it in that thread, but this is an area where the similar sport to us has gone down a different route. That's a red card in that sport. 

Interestingly there was another one a bit later that I thought could absolutely be put down to accidental as Coote did a little shuffle just before contact, but the first one I can't see any mitigation. At the moment in RL we get away with it really, but I'm not 100% sure we should. 

This was a conversation that used to come up a fair bit with James Graham. His tackling style led to a decent amount of direct head contacts and I'm not sure players should have to just suck that up because of his style. 

[Dunbar]

4 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I touched on it in that thread, but this is an area where the similar sport to us has gone down a different route. That's a red card in that sport. 

Interestingly there was another one a bit later that I thought could absolutely be put down to accidental as Coote did a little shuffle just before contact, but the first one I can't see any mitigation. At the moment in RL we get away with it really, but I'm not 100% sure we should. 

This was a conversation that used to come up a fair bit with James Graham. His tackling style led to a decent amount of direct head contacts and I'm not sure players should have to just suck that up because of his style. 

Yes, I noted your point last night and it is a good one.

To be honest, the more I think about it the more it has to be reckless to fly into a tackle like that and clash heads at force.

There was someone on the thread last night saying the ball carrier and tackler were equally at fault as it was an accidental clash of heads but surely the onus is on the tackler here.

As you, I am not looking for a send off but it was a penalty by the definition of the laws.  For so many in the commentary and on the thread to say it wasn't suggests we are not moving along in our thinking. 

[Dave T]

Just now, Dunbar said:

Yes, I noted your point last night and it is a good one.

To be honest, the more I think about it the more it has to be reckless to fly into a tackle like that and clash heads at force.

There was someone on the thread last night saying the ball carrier and tackler were equally at fault as it was an accidental clash of heads but surely the onus is on the tackler here.

As you, I am not looking for a send off but it was a penalty by the definition of the laws.  For so many in the commentary and on the thread to say it wasn't suggests we are not moving along in our thinking. 

Tbh I struggled with last night's game from a player safety point of view, and I worry that we are really setting ourselves up. 

There were many late hits in the game (a horrible, cynical part of the game), and the commentators constantly downplayed it as nothing - ignoring the fact that the Cas winger shoots in and puts the shoulder in every game - it is his choice to do that. Similarly Watts is a regular at this. A couple were missed by the ref too. 

We saw a swinging arm which caught the top of the KR player's head and O'connor is calling for us to ignore it and play on. 

And then we had these two head to head contacts which saw players leave the field injured and not return, with the universal commentary that it is all perfectly fine and just an accident. 

I think the similar sport have gone down a route which feels severe, but I think our approach is maybe too lenient. We just haven't stamped out late hits, and I don't think head to head is even on the radar. 

Seeing Coote and Westerman in distress on the field isn't good. 

 

[Dunbar]

8 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Tbh I struggled with last night's game from a player safety point of view, and I worry that we are really setting ourselves up. 

There were many late hits in the game (a horrible, cynical part of the game), and the commentators constantly downplayed it as nothing - ignoring the fact that the Cas winger shoots in and puts the shoulder in every game - it is his choice to do that. Similarly Watts is a regular at this. A couple were missed by the ref too. 

We saw a swinging arm which caught the top of the KR player's head and O'connor is calling for us to ignore it and play on. 

And then we had these two head to head contacts which saw players leave the field injured and not return, with the universal commentary that it is all perfectly fine and just an accident. 

I think the similar sport have gone down a route which feels severe, but I think our approach is maybe too lenient. We just haven't stamped out late hits, and I don't think head to head is even on the radar. 

Seeing Coote and Westerman in distress on the field isn't good. 

 

I am always torn in these conversations as I love the gladiatorial and attritional side of Rugby League.  I will take a 10-6 with a titanic forward battle over a 44-36 every day of the week.

But we have to accept that having a HIA process and praising the care that players get after a head clash but dismissing the cause of the incident is just blinkered. 

And we can have gladiatorial and attritional battles without late hits and reckless head clashes anyway.

[AB90]

1 hour ago, Dunbar said:

There was an incident in last night's Castleford HKR game when a penalty was given for an upright tackle and a serious clash of heads.  The recipient of the tackle was on the ground for some time and had to leave the field for a HIA (I didn't see if he returned).  I tried to start a conversation on the thread but here may be a better place.  A couple of points.

1. Is this a penalty? The laws state that reckless or careless contact with the head while executing a tackle is misconduct.  It can easily be argued that a tackler clashing heads at force is reckless.  Others will say it is an accident.  The majority of posters and the commentators felt it wasn't a penalty.

2. Research clearly shows that the upright tackling prevalent in Rugby League increases the chance of head injury considerably.  One of the key studies showed that there was a 3.2-fold higher risk for an HIA when the tackler was upright compared to bent-at-the-waist.

I am not advocating for a change, merely garnering opinion.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8599744/

 

My only push back against that referenced study is that if a player goes off for an HIA that doesn’t mean they suffered a concussion or even received a significant blow to the head as most players return to the field after a HIA. It would be interesting to see that exact same study but only applied to ‘failed’ HIA’s. 

I have no evidence for this and am more than happy to be corrected but I feel far more ‘failed’ HIA’s come from low tackles (I.e players being knocked out collecting knees, hips, elbows etc).

[Dunbar]

12 minutes ago, AB90 said:

My only push back against that referenced study is that if a player goes off for an HIA that doesn’t mean they suffered a concussion or even received a significant blow to the head as most players return to the field after a HIA. It would be interesting to see that exact same study but only applied to ‘failed’ HIA’s. 

I have no evidence for this and am more than happy to be corrected but I feel far more ‘failed’ HIA’s come from low tackles (I.e players being knocked out collecting knees, hips, elbows etc).

I certainly agree that hips and knees are a cause for head injury.  As a proportion of all tackles, I think the lowest tackles are statistically the most likely to cause head injury with the upright tackles coming in after.  Torso tackles are the safest in this aspect.

And then we have the one where two tacklers clash heads.  Fairly common and probably the absolute definition of accidental.

I suppose the only wording I would question in your post is that a HIA check doesn't mean they received a significant blow to the head.  Maybe an on field check but if they go off for a full HIA then I think we can assume that it was a significant blow.  

In this study, they quote "A HIA was identified as a head impact event that necessitated either the permanent removal from the game of a player with a confirmed concussion, or the temporary removal of a player with a suspected concussion for an off-field head injury evaluation, as per the NRL concussion recognition and management process."

So I think we can say that they were fairly significant head knocks.

[Damien]

1 hour ago, Dunbar said:

There was an incident in last night's Castleford HKR game when a penalty was given for an upright tackle and a serious clash of heads.  The recipient of the tackle was on the ground for some time and had to leave the field for a HIA (I didn't see if he returned).  I tried to start a conversation on the thread but here may be a better place.  A couple of points.

1. Is this a penalty? The laws state that reckless or careless contact with the head while executing a tackle is misconduct.  It can easily be argued that a tackler clashing heads at force is reckless.  Others will say it is an accident.  The majority of posters and the commentators felt it wasn't a penalty.

2. Research clearly shows that the upright tackling prevalent in Rugby League increases the chance of head injury considerably.  One of the key studies showed that there was a 3.2-fold higher risk for an HIA when the tackler was upright compared to bent-at-the-waist.

I am not advocating for a change, merely garnering opinion.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8599744/

On point 1 I do think the tackler has a duty of care and responsibility. I think the reckless element was one of the reasons the shoulder charge was outlawed and this type of thing is similar. RU has gone down a much stricter path on this, and too far in my opinion, but RL is still too far the other way.

On point 2 I think this is where the new armpit height tackle trial rule will help a lot as it forces tacklers to bend more to focus the tackle on that torso area.

So I think if the armpit height tackle trial rule comes to pass then that should help with upright head clashes and should place more onus on the attacker to drop his/her head height. Of course the game needs to strictly enforce any contact above armpit height as a penalty, whether accidental or not.

[Dave T]

1 hour ago, Dunbar said:

I am always torn in these conversations as I love the gladiatorial and attritional side of Rugby League.  I will take a 10-6 with a titanic forward battle over a 44-36 every day of the week.

But we have to accept that having a HIA process and praising the care that players get after a head clash but dismissing the cause of the incident is just blinkered. 

And we can have gladiatorial and attritional battles without late hits and reckless head clashes anyway.

I think your last para sums it up perfectly. People need to have these conversations with cool heads. The game is still brutal despite all sorts of things now being outlawed in tackles, including shoulder charges and techniques ninja tackles, chicken wings, lifting above horizontal etc. But we have banned most of those things with little fuss (apart from the shoulder). 

We can't boast that tackles are like car crashes and then not have serious conversations about incidents like those on Westerman and Coote, plus the late hits. 

I thought last night's game felt like 20 years ago for a couple of reasons (I'll leave the Wheldon Rd point to another thread ), but I thought Cas were fired up and played on the edge and we had a fair bit of dirty play that needed sorting. We then had the neanderthals in commentary complaining about high tackles for foul play. 

I really enkoyed last night's match, but I worry that compared to other sports it looked a bit out. I'm making this point provocatively, but it looked more like bare knuckle fighting compared to boxing. 

[RP London]

12 minutes ago, Damien said:

On point 1 I do think the tackler has a duty of care and responsibility. I think the reckless element was one of the reasons the shoulder charge was outlawed and this type of thing is similar. RU has gone down a much stricter path on this, and too far in my opinion, but RL is still too far the other way.

On point 2 I think this is where the new armpit height tackle trial rule will help a lot as it forces tacklers to bend more to focus the tackle on that torso area.

So I think if the armpit height tackle trial rule comes to pass then that should help with upright head clashes and should place more onus on the attacker to drop his/her head height. Of course the game needs to strictly enforce any contact above armpit height as a penalty, whether accidental or not.

Totally agree with you on this. They have to penalise it hard as well (RU has gone too far on that too but think they are very scared of the lawsuit).. bans need to be strong and the argument of "best players on the pitch" has to be thrown back at people with stopping the best players having weeks off with concussion etc. it works both ways. 

 

[bobbruce]

On 19/04/2023 at 18:14, Dunbar said:

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.

Actually it isn’t certainly health and safety in construction although massively improved always takes along time to sink in. Things like hard hats,masks and goggles are worn if the site is on top of it. As soon as workers go on a site that doesn’t enforce it they all usually come off. 

[Dunbar]

3 minutes ago, bobbruce said:

Actually it isn’t certainly health and safety in construction although massively improved always takes along time to sink in. Things like hard hats,masks and goggles are worn if the site is on top of it. As soon as workers go on a site that doesn’t enforce it they all usually come off. 

Yes, I noticed that in my very short career in motorway construction. 

(my short career in motorway construction being a summer as a labourer on the M62 extension... but motorway construction sounds better!)

[bobbruce]

1 minute ago, Dunbar said:

Yes, I noticed that in my very short career in motorway construction. 

(my short career in motorway construction being a summer as a labourer on the M62 extension... but motorway construction sounds better!)

So those delays are your fault. 
 

The prevailing attitude seems to be that H&S is a pain and makes the job harder. Which I imagine that’s why some current players would fight back against any attempt to protect them. What will probably happen is the game will start to change when it’s full of academy players who have only ever played under these interpretations. That could take 10/15 years and I’m not sure we have that long to sort this out.  

[RP London]

1 hour ago, bobbruce said:

Actually it isn’t certainly health and safety in construction although massively improved always takes along time to sink in. Things like hard hats,masks and goggles are worn if the site is on top of it. As soon as workers go on a site that doesn’t enforce it they all usually come off. 

Same with our work.. if you don't keep telling them they would happily not wear any protective equipment.. its bizarre 

[bratman]

I think we should probably penalise any late tackle. There was some very hard late tackles last night that could have caused some serious damage, best to try and eradicate them now IMO.