Nick Fozzard getting dragged on Twitter

[Dunbar]

1 hour ago, gingerjon said:

What did the game do to stop him and others hitting and being hit on the head?

Was that enough given what they knew, or should have known, at the time?

Couple of points.

1.  The 'game' laid down the laws of the sport and punished those that infringed those laws.  But when you have a player stating explicitally that he "hit sinfield with a very deliberate attack to his head hurting him quite badly" then whose to blame there?  If I break the laws of the land then it my fault for breaking the law, no-one else's.

2. How should they have known more at the time?  We are not talking a multi-billion pound industry here - the sport of RL and the RFL have never been flushed with cash or resources - are you saying the sport should have been leading the way in terms of long term cogniative effects of head injury?

[gingerjon]

7 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

Couple of points.

1.  The 'game' laid down the laws of the sport and punished those that infringed those laws.  But when you have a player stating explicitally that he "hit sinfield with a very deliberate attack to his head hurting him quite badly" then whose to blame there?  If I break the laws of the land then it my fault for breaking the law, no-one else's.

2. How should they have known more at the time?  We are not talking a multi-billion pound industry here - the sport of RL and the RFL have never been flushed with cash or resources - are you saying the sport should have been leading the way in terms of long term cogniative effects of head injury?

I am very ambivalent about all of this but, in reverse:

Yes, should have known. I am saying there will have been a point by which the “we didn’t know” excuse is no longer valid. (And being poor will play no part in that.) So a key question will be: when would it be reasonable to have expected an organisation overseeing a hard physical contact sport to be aware of this aspect?

If you break the laws of the land often enough then, eventually, steps will be taken to ensure you don’t have the opportunity to break them again (in theory). We have players as recently as last season making what looked like deliberate contact to the head and both staying on the field and being back playing again a week or so later.

[Dunbar]

24 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

I am very ambivalent about all of this but, in reverse:

Yes, should have known. I am saying there will have been a point by which the “we didn’t know” excuse is no longer valid. (And being poor will play no part in that.) So a key question will be: when would it be reasonable to have expected an organisation overseeing a hard physical contact sport to be aware of this aspect?

That won't work as a reply.  You are the one saying that the sport should have known more than they did.  I am asking when this was and how/why should they have known more.

You have made the claim, can you put some actual context on it please.

Edited April 14, 2023 by Dunbar

[The Blues Ox]

18 minutes ago, Hull Kingston Bronco said:

Players knew as much as the governing body did at the time, which is the bar I set for whether the RFL are worthy of being sued by such players. We all know more now, but I don't think it is reasonable to sue the RFL for our shared ignorance in the past. These men were adults, making choices.  

I don't agree with you regarding the community part but that is something which will become clearer in the next few years but whatever happens the RFL will have no choice but to allow junior rugby to still be afordable for its members. The fact is though at the moment if community clubs have players that can't afford the RFL fees then they will try and cover it like they have done for many a year, if those fees go up then community clubs will do what they have always done which is fend for themselves rather than rely on help from the RFL which is usually between miniscule to non.

The quoted part is the bit that always gets me - Players knew as much as the governing body at the time. I doub't this is even close to been true, even if the clubs themselves knew, was that info passed on to the players? I know I didn't have a clue and it wasn't even something that crossed my mind and also bearing in mind you say these men were adults, I bet most started at a very early age and this would have been the last thing on their mind instead just wanting to play rugby. 

I bet we could go back to when the article I mentioned above was wrote and find instances of players been knocked out on the field and either been allowed to train or play a few days later or worse still allowed to contine in the very same game. If that is the case then its very clear negligence on the part of RFL. 

[Chris22]

Firstly, I do have sympathy with any ex player with a brain injury. I think some of the comments from the sport's fans are horrific given that  backdrop.

Saying that, if you choose to bring a legal claim and publicise it, you open your past words and actions to public scrutiny.

The players who are part of this action and have made no public comment are acting more sensibly.

I don't think a running commentary from Fozzard, Goulding or anyone else helps anyone and is very unwise.

[Hull Kingston Bronco]

15 minutes ago, The Blues Ox said:

I don't agree with you regarding the community part but that is something which will become clearer in the next few years but whatever happens the RFL will have no choice but to allow junior rugby to still be afordable for its members. The fact is though at the moment if community clubs have players that can't afford the RFL fees then they will try and cover it like they have done for many a year, if those fees go up then community clubs will do what they have always done which is fend for themselves rather than rely on help from the RFL which is usually between miniscule to non.

The quoted part is the bit that always gets me - Players knew as much as the governing body at the time. I doub't this is even close to been true, even if the clubs themselves knew, was that info passed on to the players? I know I didn't have a clue and it wasn't even something that crossed my mind and also bearing in mind you say these men were adults, I bet most started at a very early age and this would have been the last thing on their mind instead just wanting to play rugby. 

I bet we could go back to when the article I mentioned above was wrote and find instances of players been knocked out on the field and either been allowed to train or play a few days later or worse still allowed to contine in the very same game. If that is the case then its very clear negligence on the part of RFL. 

You think the clubs knew stuff, and didn't tell players? My perspective is there was a shared ignorance, beyond the surface level "don't hit people on the head" (which both clubs, rule-makers and players knew). I understand the idea that a governing body has a wider responsibility to be aware of welfare issues, and communicate, but that's with the hindsight with the information we now have on this specific. People at the time didn't know or understand the specific mechanics of head injuries, particularly repetitive ones within short timescales. That's true in much better resourced sports than rugby league, like football, which were in an even better position to know and yet still didn't. 

Anyway, that'll be the court case eh and it'll all get litigated there. My main point is it's reasonable to make the players aware of the consequences of their legal action on others who would still like to participate in the game in the future. Especially players like Fozzard, who clearly delighted in hurting other people both at the time and even still looking back on it. In his own words. 

 

[Damien]

I simply don't believe that the RFL were sitting on all this evidence that they were hiding from the players. This is the RFL we are talking about with barely a pot to ###### in. Most of what we do know with regards to concussion has come off the back of reports and research from other much bigger and wealthier sports. I firmly believe the RFL knew about as much as the likes of Fozzard.

The question is did the RFL take all reasonable steps. What we do know is that for as long as I can remember the RFL have followed medical advice with their concussion protocols. That was certainly the case in Fozzards time too. It isn't the RFL's fault if this advice was flawed, based upon what was known at the time by medical professionals. They also implemented laws to prevent high tackles and limit dangerous tackles, which players like Fozzard admitted they ignored to inflict injury.

Where it gets a little more murky for me is if these protocols weren't followed and this is where I see the focus being more on clubs. I know this wasn't always the case but then many players were culpable in covering up symptoms too to play. Players though would have been under pressure to play though and clubs do have a duty of care. Then again if players didn't know the full consequences then neither did clubs. I do think failures by a club is where individual players have more of a case. 

[gingerjon]

33 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

That won't work as a reply.  You are the one saying that the sport should have known more than they did.  I am asking when this was and how/why should they have known more.

You have made the claim, can you put some actual context on it please.

No, I’m saying that it is the RFL’s responsibility to know. Not knowing is no defence if the knowledge was available to know.

Obviously I don’t know when that was as I’m neither a concussion researcher nor a national governing body. But going “Look, we’re a bit poor and don’t subscribe to The Lancet” isn’t a defence if it can be shown that they should have known.

[Dunbar]

7 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

No, I’m saying that it is the RFL’s responsibility to know. Not knowing is no defence if the knowledge was available to know.

Obviously I don’t know when that was as I’m neither a concussion researcher nor a national governing body. But going “Look, we’re a bit poor and don’t subscribe to The Lancet” isn’t a defence if it can be shown that they should have known.

I'm sorry, but I am going to have to be quite specific here because you made a very specific claim.

Of course the governing body should know about the issues that surround the sport and its participants but you specifically claimed that they should have known more than they did and I am asking how and why should they have known more than they did in what was (and still is in many ways) an emerging field of medical research.

This is really relevant because if the governing body 'should' have known more then they are at fault.  My position is that I cannot see why or how the RFL should have known more about the long term effects of head injury that they did at the time.

[marklaspalmas]

16 hours ago, DI Keith Fowler said:

Absolutely hated his big padded arm thing, used to wince when he ran it in. 

Rightly or wrongly, this is my stand-out memory of Fozzard. It was a weapon to hurt tacklers.

That said, I'm not sure of the relevance of that to the merits of his legal case.

This is obviously an extremely important debate and issue for the future of RL.

[gingerjon]

5 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

I'm sorry, but I am going to have to be quite specific here because you made a very specific claim.

Of course the governing body should know about the issues that surround the sport and its participants but you specifically claimed that they should have known more than they did and I am asking how and why should they have known more than they did in what was (and still is in many ways) an emerging field of medical research.

This is really relevant because if the governing body 'should' have known more then they are at fault.  My position is that I cannot see why or how the RFL should have known more about the long term effects of head injury that they did at the time.

I’ve reread what I wrote and it was an open question not a statement so, nah, no need to repeat myself again.

[gingerjon]

5 minutes ago, marklaspalmas said:

Rightly or wrongly, this is my stand-out memory of Fozzard. It was a weapon to hurt tacklers.

That said, I'm not sure of the relevance of that to the merits of his legal case.

This is obviously an extremely important debate and issue for the future of RL.

It will help the RFL, in the court of public opinion, if people are reminded he was a grub.

It may not help in actual court if there’s evidence they didn’t do enough to stop grubs being grubby.

And, you are right, this will be massive for the sport. Not least the cost in defending and the distraction effect - even if the RFL wins.

[Phil]

I was diagnosed with temporal lobe epilepsy in my late 50s, the neurologist looked at my scans and asked if I’d been a boxer in my youth.

 I told him no I’d played RL from the age of 13 to 34.

He sighed and looked at the scans again. “You’ve been lucky, very very lucky to only have this”

The fact is head tackles were illegal but in general no punished for many years.

The game is now paying the price for this inaction 

[The Future is League]

18 hours ago, Damien said:

Like really:

 

Kevin Sinfield would be within his rights to sue him for compensation after Fozzards words. He's left himself open to all sorts of legal actions in my opinion, and the RFL lawyers will looking at his words and thinking, this is manna from from heaven

[The Future is League]

18 hours ago, Damien said:

Like really:

 

That statement isn't going to help his case by him admitting he was a thug and, and Nathan Wood could find himself caught in this IF Fozzards words are true what Wood said

[The Future is League]

18 hours ago, Damien said:

Absolutely, I couldn't have put it better myself. I think it's very debatable how much the RFL knew with regards to concussion and if they were any better informed than players. For quite a long time the RFL have certainly made it known that they have followed medical advice regarding concussion protocols. It is absolutely not debatable that attacks to the head could cause serious injury and things like a broken jaw. Fozzard admits he did this knowing the consequences. Based on that on reading his past tweets he just leaves himself wide open to be sued himself:

Another comment showing why often in his playing days he was known as bungalow. This will not help his case

[The Blues Ox]

4 minutes ago, The Future is League said:

That statement isn't going to help his case by him admitting he was a thug and, and Nathan Wood could find himself caught in this IF Fozzards words are true what Wood said

Flip side, this could actually help the case if it can be proven that Fozzard is a longterm sufferer of CTE and some of his actions are a result of that. We won't get to see medical records but there certainly could be an angle there. One thing that will happen is that the game will not be painted in a very good light and there will be questions about how the RFL looked after players who had anger issues, substance abuse issues and maybe look deeper in to players or ex players who took their own lives and ask if enough was done to look after those players who could have those issues because of brain trauma caused by playing the game.

One thing that sticks in my memory about Fozzard was watching one of his last games, could have been his last, for dewsbury against Halifax and just thinking something wasn't right with him and how he was acting. I remember the crowd reacting to a shot put on him by Jim Gannon and he stood up waving his arms and was reacting to the crowd all game, I don't know it just felt strange. He retired shortly after, maybe the signs were already there who knows.

[Dunbar]

2 hours ago, gingerjon said:

I’ve reread what I wrote and it was an open question not a statement so, nah, no need to repeat myself again.

Edit

Edited April 14, 2023 by Dunbar

[graveyard johnny]

went to be a teacher as far as I know after finishing in the game ?

a profession famous for a history of ( until the last 20 years) of cracking kids round the head 

how many people could say the slap round head they got at scool on their un developed skulls has now contributed to a form of whatever 

its a farce 

[OnStrike]

2 minutes ago, graveyard johnny said:

went to be a teacher as far as I know after finishing in the game ?

a profession famous for a history of ( until the last 20 years) of cracking kids round the head 

how many people could say the slap round head they got at scool on their un developed skulls has now contributed to a form of whatever 

its a farce 

To be fair, getting physically assaulted by an adult probably not the best thing for a child' brain development...or education 

[bobbruce]

8 hours ago, Vyvyan said:

Might this case, if successful,  open a can of worms?  Could it make insurance more expensive for current players and clubs?

Insurance even for amateur players has gone up thousands £ in the last few years. Insurance companies know what’s coming. 

[daz39]

7 hours ago, marklaspalmas said:

Rightly or wrongly, this is my stand-out memory of Fozzard. It was a weapon to hurt tacklers.

That said, I'm not sure of the relevance of that to the merits of his legal case.

This is obviously an extremely important debate and issue for the future of RL.

I remember having a conversation with an ex-team mate and then opponent of Fozzard and he claimed it wasn't just bandage that was wrapped up in that, i asked what it was and he replied 'it's not for me to tell'.

It was as you say a weapon later in his career nothing more. 

[DACS]

I'm interested in the idea that keeps being put up here that insurers will supposedly pay any compensation for players who haven't played for years (in some cases 30 years).

No doubt the RFL and clubs have general liability insurance, and cover for medical costs relating to current players. But what cover would RL (or any sport) have relating to ex players? They may have some  but if they do the cover will be capped out - no insurer would accept an open-ended risk. 

I just can't see any pot of gold through insurance. 

[Tommygilf]

6 hours ago, bobbruce said:

Insurance even for amateur players has gone up thousands £ in the last few years. Insurance companies know what’s coming. 

For the whole game the RFL insurance bill has near enough quadrupled and only one firm was willing to provide the insurance.

[The Blues Ox]

Makes sense to make the game safer then otherwise down the line the RFL won't get insured.