The Players Are Revolting

[Dave T]

1 hour ago, Harry Stottle said:

Why did you mention Fozzard and Goulding?

 

Because they are two of the high profile names suing the RFL who used to have terrible records for foul play when they played the game. 

I thought that was obvious. 

The point, again, which I thought was obvious, is that players aren't necessarily the best people to decided on rules and safety. 

[LeytherRob]

3 hours ago, Dave T said:

Because they are two of the high profile names suing the RFL who used to have terrible records for foul play when they played the game. 

I thought that was obvious. 

The point, again, which I thought was obvious, is that players aren't necessarily the best people to decided on rules and safety. 

Fozzard I find particularly galling, I was in hospitality with him at a Leigh match early 2020 just before covid hit and he took a great amount of pleasure in regaling the table with stories of all kinds of dodgy stuff he'd get away with on the pitch.

[RigbyLuger]

21 minutes ago, LeytherRob said:

Fozzard I find particularly galling, I was in hospitality with him at a Leigh match early 2020 just before covid hit and he took a great amount of pleasure in regaling the table with stories of all kinds of dodgy stuff he'd get away with on the pitch.

Was his arm fixed? Needed that bandage for years on end.

[Dave T]

30 minutes ago, LeytherRob said:

Fozzard I find particularly galling, I was in hospitality with him at a Leigh match early 2020 just before covid hit and he took a great amount of pleasure in regaling the table with stories of all kinds of dodgy stuff he'd get away with on the pitch.

I don't have any bitterness towards any of the players. For the sake of the game I hope they don't win their case, but if clubs and the game were neglectful (based on processes at that time) then they deserve to win their case.

But what those two examples do show is that players often don't have the best interests of players (including themselves) and health and safety in mind, so I'm not sure they are the best 'experts' to use for this kind of thing. Absolutely there is a case that communication should be good, but I think there is a strong case for taking this kind of decision away from players themselves.

[Worzel]

42 minutes ago, LeytherRob said:

Fozzard I find particularly galling, I was in hospitality with him at a Leigh match early 2020 just before covid hit and he took a great amount of pleasure in regaling the table with stories of all kinds of dodgy stuff he'd get away with on the pitch.

Yup. The bloke is a prize wazzock. 

[Harry Stottle]

5 hours ago, Dave T said:

Because they are two of the high profile names suing the RFL who used to have terrible records for foul play when they played the game. 

I thought that was obvious. 

The point, again, which I thought was obvious, is that players aren't necessarily the best people to decided on rules and safety. 

For all those reasons except the suing,  is why I included Paul Cullens name.

[Dave T]

15 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

For all those reasons except the suing,  is why I included Paul Cullens name.

Your post makes no sense. 

[JohnM]

I think that a reduction in insurance costs is not an issue. In my view, it may be more about getting any insurance at all.  Overall, the momentum is building in both codes, the body of medical knowledge on the subject is growing all the time and "duty of care" is a phrase of increasing relevance. 

The penalties imposed are not just about punishing the guilty but about encouraging behaviour change. Sure, it's not always easy for players to adapt (tall against small, falling into tackles etc)  but that is no reason not to do it. Threatening to defect to rugby union defies logic, as their game is in exactly the same position.

Plus, there is plenty of legal expertise available to the RFL to help. I'm sure Hudgell's would have had a say at some point, and maybe even these people: https://www.slaterheelis.co.uk/news/rugby-league-cares-partnership/

Edited February 22 by JohnM

[Kayakman]

2 hours ago, Dave T said:

Your post makes no sense. 

Its Okay Harry, he is having problems understanding my posts on another thread also.

Hope all is well with you Harry....still at it I see.  Nice burgundies out of France this year?

[Wakefield Ram]

22 hours 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 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.

 

And contact training needs to be reduced. I spoke to a now young man I coached who was in a SL Academy. He said there was full on contact training nearly every day and this is in the last handful of years. If it still happens, it's got to stop. NFL only allow one contact session a week. And they play far less games and most players play far fewer game minutes.

I have to say that much as I enjoy watching the game, when I see a "big hit" I just think, that's another step to brain damage. The evidence is irrefutable. 

The players can't know the risks and they are very young men many of whom knows nothing else. 

[phiggins]

15 hours ago, Dave T said:

Because they are two of the high profile names suing the RFL who used to have terrible records for foul play when they played the game. 

I thought that was obvious. 

The point, again, which I thought was obvious, is that players aren't necessarily the best people to decided on rules and safety. 

But do they want to decide on safety? Or do they want the chance to have an input on what some other impacts might be, and ask questions at an early stage.

There will always be a balance of what level of risk is acceptable, and if you leave it purely to medics to decide then they could give a fairly extreme answer. If players are told that the number of collisions needs to be reduced then their suggested response could be to reduce the number of games played. 

If I were a player now, my two questions would be how can the RFL release a video of two defenders clashing heads and citing it as a good tackle, and is there any safety risks associated with playing with a man less more regularly 

[Dave T]

47 minutes ago, phiggins said:

But do they want to decide on safety? Or do they want the chance to have an input on what some other impacts might be, and ask questions at an early stage.

There will always be a balance of what level of risk is acceptable, and if you leave it purely to medics to decide then they could give a fairly extreme answer. If players are told that the number of collisions needs to be reduced then their suggested response could be to reduce the number of games played. 

If I were a player now, my two questions would be how can the RFL release a video of two defenders clashing heads and citing it as a good tackle, and is there any safety risks associated with playing with a man less more regularly 

From what I gather, the players union was represented - maybe that's where they should be focusing their attention - I noted that Carvell did come out defending them this week.

I'm not saying players shouldn't have a voice, but they don't make it easy for themselves when the story in the media this week is about them considering striking because they don't like being punished for shoulders to the face. 

[Harry Stottle]

7 hours ago, Kayakman said:

Its Okay Harry, he is having problems understanding my posts on another thread also.

Hope all is well with you Harry....still at it I see.  Nice burgundies out of France this year?

How are you doing K'man, still rounding up the 'Beavers', as they say 'you can't keep a good man down'!

Did you take the sojourn you were planning back to the old country, must say I do miss our banter it was good back then, said to say the General Rugby platform of this forum is more political than the political platform, there is as much drivel than from a 'gaggle' of politicians, all the fun seems to be leaving the game in my opinion it is no longer the sport I have been involved in known and loved for a very long time but c'est la vie let's see were it takes us.

The player's are not liking what they are seeing and observing from the match day officials and the judgements of the Match Revue Panel at present, and I think another consideration of theirs is how it will get compounded with even more fines and suspensions when the 'armpit' rule comes in next year, I hope the players continue with their grievances in whatever form they see fit not give in and common sense prevails.

Take care mate.

[JohnM]

What is "political" about working to protect players from themselves and their ignorance and to protect them from suffering the life-changing consequences of injuries that may only start to show symptoms long after (or not so long after) retirement from the game?

As for the "disclaimer" nonsense, that myth has been debunked in so many places, including here.  Common sense? Common nonsense!

https://www.reuters.com/lifestyle/sports/research-shows-huge-spike-mnd-risk-among-former-international-players-2022-10-04/

 

[Click]

17 hours ago, Harry Stottle said:

I go back quite a long way in this game, did you ever hear of the period it was labelled 'Thugby League', I don't know your age but if you ever witnessed how the game was once played it certainly bears no resemblance to a time before.

Right, yes. The game doesn't much resemble "Thugby League" - I am not sure if you are advocating for a return of that time? 

The sport has evolved over the last 40 years, that's kind of what happens with pretty much every sport. Last weekends games seemed like the RL I have been watching in SL for the last 5 years at least. 

[Harry Stottle]

21 minutes ago, JohnM said:

What is "political" about working to protect players from themselves and their ignorance and to protect them from suffering the life-changing consequences of injuries that may only start to show symptoms long after (or not so long after) retirement from the game?

As for the "disclaimer" nonsense, that myth has been debunked in so many places, including here.  Common sense? Common nonsense!

https://www.reuters.com/lifestyle/sports/research-shows-huge-spike-mnd-risk-among-former-international-players-2022-10-04/

 

Well it seems the antagonists of these systems and rules are the ones at the pointy end, I am sure they are well aware of the minimal risks of neurological complications by participating in the sport.

[gingerjon]

Just now, Harry Stottle said:

I am sure they are well aware of the minimal risks of neurological complications by participating in the sport.

Do you have any stats beyond the "but loads of people get dementia" one?

[Harry Stottle]

12 minutes ago, Click said:

. Last weekends games seemed like the RL I have been watching in SL for the last 5 years at least. 

And that is what the players want to return to as far as adjudications are con erned, can't you see that?

[Click]

1 minute ago, Harry Stottle said:

And that is what the players want to return to as far as adjudications are con erned, can't you see that?

I am yet to see that we have left that game behind.

We have had 1 round of matches in  a new SL season and all the players and fans of players (fans of players who got bans) are throwing everything out of their prams.  

[JohnM]

4 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Well it seems the antagonists of these systems and rules are the ones at the pointy end, I am sure they are well aware of the minimal risks of neurological complications by participating in the sport.

Oh, well, if you are sure, that's OK then. In ludo est.

 

Hacking is the name of a tactic in the early forms of football that involved tripping an opposing player by kicking their shins. A dispute among clubs over whether to ban the tactic eventually led to the split between the sports of association football and rugby football. Despite this split, rugby clubs banned the tactic soon after.

Depite the players knowing the injury risk?   

Ludus mortuus est

[Harry Stottle]

3 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

Do you have any stats beyond the "but loads of people get dementia" one?

No, but as I said 10M new cases globally every year, 944,000 sufferes in the UK, 100 ex-players from over how many years have come forward to legally challenge the RFL, and how many of those could be natural causes as the many many millions who have never been anywhere near a rugby ball.

Are there any proven cases that all these claimants are suffering from directly being a participant in rugby league, or is it a just a likelihood?

[gingerjon]

11 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

No, but as I said 10M new cases globally every year, 944,000 sufferes in the UK, 100 ex-players from over how many years have come forward to legally challenge the RFL, and how many of those could be natural causes as the many many millions who have never been anywhere near a rugby ball.

Are there any proven cases that all these claimants are suffering from directly being a participant in rugby league, or is it a just a likelihood?

Did you ever believe that smoking and lung cancer were linked?

[JohnM]

1 hour ago, Harry Stottle said:

How are you doing K'man, still rounding up the 'Beavers', as they say 'you can't keep a good man down'!

Did you take the sojourn you were planning back to the old country, must say I do miss our banter it was good back then, said to say the General Rugby platform of this forum is more political than the political platform, there is as much drivel than from a 'gaggle' of politicians, all the fun seems to be leaving the game in my opinion it is no longer the sport I have been involved in known and loved for a very long time but c'est la vie let's see were it takes us.

The player's are not liking what they are seeing and observing from the match day officials and the judgements of the Match Revue Panel at present, and I think another consideration of theirs is how it will get compounded with even more fines and suspensions when the 'armpit' rule comes in next year, I hope the players continue with their grievances in whatever form they see fit not give in and common sense prevails.

Take care mate.

Common sense or detailed reserach?

Full article: Analysis of incidence of motor neuron disease in England 1998–2019: use of three linked datasets (tandfonline.com)

The game's gone. 

[JohnM]

11 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

Did you ever believe that smoking and lung cancer were linked?

Not to mention BSE and Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease,  motorcycle helmets, leaded vs unleaded petrol.

[Harry Stottle]

12 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

Did you ever believe that smoking and lung cancer were linked?

I answered your question, please answer mine.