The Players Are Revolting

[Coggo]

2 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

I am not moving any goalposts.  All I said was that the NFL had to change because of the financial impact.

I didn't specify what those changes were and you brought in the height of the tackle in NFL as if that mattered.

The point is simple.  The NFL is orders of magnitude richer than the NRL and had to change due to the pressures applied to them around head injuries and I make this point because you said the NRL wasn't under financial pressure to change.  It will be.

All the rest of our conversation is just stuff you have added to muddy the waters.

OK. So we both agree that the NRL won't and shouldn't follow the RFL's armpit rule. Good.

[RP London]

12 hours ago, Coggo said:

How did the NFL change? Did they ban tackles above the armpit?

taking into account the fact that the NFL has always been happier with higher hits, after all they used the helmet as a weapon in past (who'd have thunk they would have concussion issues?!?) they have gradually been lowering and tightening this up since the mid 2000s when they got into trouble... which BTW is going to be one of the issues around the rugby cases as this is all based on knowledge that the US sports industry had at the time and were acting upon, but they knew about it earlier (hence losing their cases and paying an awful lot of money out).. 

since the mid 2000s they have lowered the tackle height (starting much higher as they have had to ban strikes with the helmet etc).. horse collars, moving that lower and lower every couple of years.. blindside and defenceless player strikes due to the whiplash concussive effect issues etc.. Will it get to the point its below the armpit, probably not but the accidental hits with less power are less of a problem with the helmets, they are a big problem for injuries to players in our game therefore make the "margin of error" lower by lowering the tackle height slightly. 

I am not sure this is "all about insurance" I have not seen that.. i have seen quite a lot about player safety and yes the insurance companies will have a say but equally its the right thing to do and we do have to be aware of long term issues in insurance/PR and general "being ethical" stand points.. Equally, and it gets my goat when i see the argument around the bans, surely we want to see our best players on the pitch as much as possible, we dont want to see them sitting on the sidelines with concussion or retiring early due to concussion. We can bemoan players being banned and not playing but they can actually stop that happening, what about those players injured and therefore not playing! Lets take away some of the big injury potential and the long lay offs players can have for concussions.. surely that is the right thing to do for the spectacle of watching the best players every game (those that keep getting banned are not the ones we should consider in this argument)

[Dunbar]

2 minutes ago, Coggo said:

OK. So we both agree that the NRL won't and shouldn't follow the RFL's armpit rule. Good.

I don't know what changes they will make in the future.  Just that they will change, it is inevitable. 

As for the armpit height.  It all depends on the execution and application.  Like most, I didn't like the video that the RFL released as I felt it was contradictory and confusing.

There is a lot of change coming and we need to see how it plays out.

[RP London]

1 minute ago, Dunbar said:

I don't know what changes they will make in the future.  Just that they will change, it is inevitable. 

As for the armpit height.  It all depends on the execution and application.  Like most, I didn't like the video that the RFL released as I felt it was contradictory and confusing.

There is a lot of change coming and we need to see how it plays out.

If someone is sitting shouting that the only reason for the change is for insurance purposes then yes they will change, becuase the fact that the same sport in a different country has changed due to medical research and insurance will almost certainly mean that they will have to (there will be no reason not to)... simple risk profiling says as much and underwriters look at this sort of thing.. 

now if its not purely for insurance issues then they may well not.. 

but you cannot say the RFL are changing for purely insurance reasons and not think that the same exact pressure will be put on the NRL. 

[Coggo]

Just now, RP London said:

taking into account the fact that the NFL has always been happier with higher hits, after all they used the helmet as a weapon in past (who'd have thunk they would have concussion issues?!?) they have gradually been lowering and tightening this up since the mid 2000s when they got into trouble... which BTW is going to be one of the issues around the rugby cases as this is all based on knowledge that the US sports industry had at the time and were acting upon, but they knew about it earlier (hence losing their cases and paying an awful lot of money out).. 

since the mid 2000s they have lowered the tackle height (starting much higher as they have had to ban strikes with the helmet etc).. horse collars, moving that lower and lower every couple of years.. blindside and defenceless player strikes due to the whiplash concussive effect issues etc.. Will it get to the point its below the armpit, probably not but the accidental hits with less power are less of a problem with the helmets, they are a big problem for injuries to players in our game therefore make the "margin of error" lower by lowering the tackle height slightly. 

I am not sure this is "all about insurance" I have not seen that.. i have seen quite a lot about player safety and yes the insurance companies will have a say but equally its the right thing to do and we do have to be aware of long term issues in insurance/PR and general "being ethical" stand points.. Equally, and it gets my goat when i see the argument around the bans, surely we want to see our best players on the pitch as much as possible, we dont want to see them sitting on the sidelines with concussion or retiring early due to concussion. We can bemoan players being banned and not playing but they can actually stop that happening, what about those players injured and therefore not playing! Lets take away some of the big injury potential and the long lay offs players can have for concussions.. surely that is the right thing to do for the spectacle of watching the best players every game (those that keep getting banned are not the ones we should consider in this argument)

Rugby league touch judge reveals the sport was “10 days away from not being in existence due to insurance”

[Harry Stottle]

19 hours ago, Simon Hall said:

"What Do We Want?"

"Early Onset Dementia!"

"When Do We Want It?"

"What do we want?"

 

I believe there are 10 million new cases of dementia each year worldwide, how many of those do you reckon have never played Rugby League or t'other handling game?

[RP London]

9 minutes ago, Coggo said:

Rugby league touch judge reveals the sport was “10 days away from not being in existence due to insurance”

and his credentials for making that comment?? is he an insurance broker or deal with the insurance purchase of the RFL?

He is also involved in the community game not the professional game, community RU for example has a different tackle height rule than the pro game.. 

As stated, if it is purely an insurance reason then it is highly likely that the Australian game will have to follow suit if it is proven to have an impact as that is what the world of risk and underwriting will demand. 

Edited February 21 by RP London

[Coggo]

1 minute ago, RP London said:

As stated, if it is purely an insurance reason then it is highly likely that the Australian game will have to follow suit if it is proven to have an impact as that is what the world of risk and underwriting will demand. 

Why will they have to? Maybe they could reduce to day-to-contact in training or other measures instead?

[RP London]

6 minutes ago, Coggo said:

Why will they have to? Maybe they could reduce to day-to-contact in training or other measures instead?

if you believe it is all about insurance and that RL would not get insured then the specific part of my post that you quote answers your question... 

if you don't accept that then insurance isn't the sole driver for these decisions. 

 

Edited February 21 by RP London

[Damien]

I certainly don't think it is just an insurance issue and RL certainly isnt alone in premiums rocketing across the board. Anyone that has car and house insurance knows that.

I think the legal action by Fozzard, Goulding and Co also spooked the RFL and they need to follow medical advice and need to put all appropriate mitigations in place to protect themselves from future actions now the risks are better understood.

[Coggo]

2 minutes ago, RP London said:

if you believe it is all about insurance and that RL would not get insured then the specific part of my post that you quote answers your question... 

if you don't accept that then insurance isn't the sole driver for these decisions. 

 

I believe the RFL has adopted the armpit rule to get insurance premiums it can better afford.

It doesn't follow that the NRL couldn't get insurance if it didn't follow the armpit rule, or that it couldn't afford the insurance if not following the armpit rule.   

[Coggo]

One of The Times' sports photos of the week. Probably illegal from next year.

 

[Harry Stottle]

19 hours ago, Dave T said:

spot on. Let's be honest, if Fozzard and Goulding had a voice when they played, they'd have been asking for it to be like the Wild West.

Can I add another name to those two you mention one Paul Cullen, I wonder what he is doing these days, surely it must be a coincidence that a member of the MRP has the same name?

[Dunbar]

1 hour ago, Harry Stottle said:

I believe there are 10 million new cases of dementia each year worldwide, how many of those do you reckon have never played Rugby League or t'other handling game?

The situation the sport is in at the moment is almost farcical.  The legal team representing over a 100 former players states – and I quote “we aim to… reach a point where they accept the connection between repetitive blows to the head and permanent neurological injury and to take steps to protect players and support those who are injured.”

So the RFL introduce protocols and enforce laws in 2024 that will punish blows to the head.   And in 2025 fundamentally change the sport so that contact with the head is significantly reduced.

The outcome – current players threaten strike action and former players (including some of those actually included in the legal claim) moan that the game has gone soft.

In this instance, the RFL is completely stuck between doing something and getting criticized and doing nothing and getting sued.

Honestly, you really couldn’t make it up if it wasn’t true.

 

Edited February 21 by Dunbar

[Harry Stottle]

18 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

The situation the sport is in at the moment is almost farcical.  The legal team representing over a 100 former players states – and I quote “we ami to… reach a point where they accept the connection between repetitive blows to the head and permanent neurological injury and to take steps to protect players and support those who are injured.”

So the RFL introduce protocols and enforce laws in 2024 that will punish blows to the head.   And in 2025 fundamentally change the sport so that contact with the head is significantly reduced.

The outcome – current players threaten strike action and former players (including some of those actually included in the legal claim) moan that the game has gone soft.

In this instance, the RFL is completely stuck between doing something and getting criticized and doing nothing and getting sued.

Honestly, you really couldn’t make it up if it wasn’t true.

 

What is the actual risk factor of getting a neurological injury through playing Rugby League? We have 100 former players from a period of say 60 years pressing a law suit, how many would you say both Professional and Amatuer have played the sport in this country in that time scale, the %'s is very small indeed.

This thread is about players today not in agreement with how the game is going and being marshaled both on the pitch and by the disciplinary process, if they collectively believe that the risk factor is very minimal and their desire is to drop these new rules, would it not be as simple as them signing a disclaimer that absolves the game of any future claim for neurological conditions?

[JohnM]

1 minute ago, Harry Stottle said:

What is the actual risk factor of getting a neurological injury through playing Rugby League? We have 100 former players from a period of say 60 years pressing a law suit, how many would you say both Professional and Amatuer have played the sport in this country in that time scale, the %'s is very small indeed.

This thread is about players today not in agreement with how the game is going and being marshaled both on the pitch and by the disciplinary process, if they collectively believe that the risk factor is very minimal and their desire is to drop these new rules, would it not be as simple as them signing a disclaimer that absolves the game of any future claim for neurological conditions?

Disclaimers. It has been  stated, shown, evidenced, proved etc on here that such disclaimers do not absolve the parties from  action over negligence.   

In addition, the "small percentage" argument fails becuase it does not account for, for example, undiagnosed condition, delayed onset conditions,  or for those who may only join an action once the momentum builds. 

[RP London]

54 minutes ago, Coggo said:

I believe the RFL has adopted the armpit rule to get insurance premiums it can better afford.

It doesn't follow that the NRL couldn't get insurance if it didn't follow the armpit rule, or that it couldn't afford the insurance if not following the armpit rule.   

"I believe" is not a statement of fact.. 

If it is proven to have a major effect insurance will demand it (same as car safety and business insurance) if it is proven to not have as much of an effect it will not be mandatory but may simply get the premiums down etc.. therefore the NRL may well have no choice. 

If it is proven to help against injury then surely we would accept this as a good thing, after all we all want the best players on the pitch as much as possible (hence all the people getting upset with red cards and bans for the "best players" who now miss games). Win win!

There really isnt much of an argument against this rule if it is proven to get injuries down.. unless you just like thuggery.

 

Edited February 21 by RP London

[Click]

16 hours ago, EggFace said:

###### just looking at the feed back on X...etc looks like your in the minority.

If I start living my life on what group think is on "X" then I really have just given up.

Edited February 21 by Click

[Dave T]

52 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Can I add another name to those two you mention one Paul Cullen, I wonder what he is doing these days, surely it must be a coincidence that a member of the MRP has the same name?

Not sure of the relevance. 

[Dave T]

One thing I do think that we sometimes lose sight of is that in reality, these suggestions are pretty sensible. 

High tackles are illegal, and rightly so, but we do appear to have just accepted them as part of the game for years, in many cases they get no more than a penalty. In fact people still celebrate instances of foul play on social media. 

Time will tell what the impact of the reduction in height to the armpit will make, but as we saw this weekend, just telling people not to hit the head (which has been going on for years) has done nothing to stop the likes of McIlorum and Watts from doing so. 

I understand people being resistant to change, but as we've seen, harsh bans isn't the solution, people just talk about striking and moaning about the disciplinary instead of the guilty parties. 

[Dunbar]

33 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

What is the actual risk factor of getting a neurological injury through playing Rugby League? We have 100 former players from a period of say 60 years pressing a law suit, how many would you say both Professional and Amatuer have played the sport in this country in that time scale, the %'s is very small indeed.

This thread is about players today not in agreement with how the game is going and being marshaled both on the pitch and by the disciplinary process, if they collectively believe that the risk factor is very minimal and their desire is to drop these new rules, would it not be as simple as them signing a disclaimer that absolves the game of any future claim for neurological conditions?

All the referees and disciplinary committee are doing is enforcing the laws as they are laid out.

Why would a disclaimer be needed to agree to play the game under the laws of the game.

Unless you are suggesting the disclaimer should say that the players are happy to be fouled and they don't want the referees to punish foul play - not sure how that makes life easier for anyone.

Edited February 21 by Dunbar

[Coggo]

18 minutes ago, RP London said:

There really isnt much of an argument against this rule if it is proven to get injuries down.. unless you just like thuggery.

 

This desperate grab for the moral high ground detracts from your argument (though that's pretty routine for this place!).

We are not talking about thuggery - direct contact to the head is already outlawed and punished - I am specifically discussing the armpit rule. This is a very significant change for rugby league, which, lest we forget, has a 10-metre offside rule.

It needs more thought than mere moral posturing of the sort you indulge in.

[Dunbar]

1 minute ago, Coggo said:

This desperate grab for the moral high ground detracts from your argument (though that's pretty routine for this place!).

We are not talking about thuggery - direct contact to the head is already outlawed and punished - I am specifically discussing the armpit rule. This is a very significant change for rugby league, which, lest we forget, has a 10-metre offside rule.

It needs more thought than mere moral posturing of the sort you indulge in.

I think part of the problem here is that you are discussing what will happen next year and everyone else is discussing what is happening this year.

[Coggo]

Just now, Dunbar said:

I think part of the problem here is that you are discussing what will happen next year and everyone else is discussing what is happening this year.

Could be!

[RP London]

12 minutes ago, Coggo said:

This desperate grab for the moral high ground detracts from your argument (though that's pretty routine for this place!).

We are not talking about thuggery - direct contact to the head is already outlawed and punished - I am specifically discussing the armpit rule. This is a very significant change for rugby league, which, lest we forget, has a 10-metre offside rule.

It needs more thought than mere moral posturing of the sort you indulge in.

dont know why you think it is a grab for the moral high ground.. thats a very bizarre take on what is written.. 

the armpit rule is eminently sensible when taken with risk calculations (insurance).. the ability to "accidently hit the head" is reduced by moving the initial point of legal contact to below the shoulder, there is also a shoulder in the way to get to the head.. to be hitting around the shoulder means (by the shape of the shoulder) a larger possibility to hit the head due to "riding up".. it really is quite an obvious move. 

As I said "if proven to get injuries down" what exactly is the argument against it?? you can still have massive hits (look at Simms on Williams from this weekend) and it be perfectly legal so "the spectacle" is not damaged... if its cards then 1. stop doing it and there wont be cards and 2. who is better to have on the pitch for longer the offender or the player that is getting injured, how do you judge a "better player" who is now missing games... there really isnt a good argument not to implement the rule across the game IF it is proven to do this (and you only get proof by testing). Its not a moral high ground its just common sense. 

no idea what the offside rule has got to do with the argument about armpit tackles being introduced to the NRL after being "tested" in the super league.

Edited February 21 by RP London