General Rugby Discussion II

Tom Mann Centuria

https://twitter.com/guardian_sport/status/1336309817875582977?s=20

Could be huge issues for Union (and League) to deal with when this case finishes. Very sad for the young men involved regardless.

Dog Botherer

Tom Mann Centuria wrote: »

https://twitter.com/guardian_sport/status/1336309817875582977?s=20

Could be huge issues for Union (and League) to deal with when this case finishes. Very sad for the young men involved regardless.

if it hadn’t been for that neck injury he could easily have still been playing in the last 5 years. ****ing horrible.

errlloyd

Malcolm Gladwell has a podcast where he inserted a snippet of him making a speech at an event in UPenn. He asks the audience (mostly students) how they can go to a game and cheer on a sport in which young (for nothing in terms of money and little in terms of fame), actively reduce their life expectancy and quality of life.

Do any of you ever feel that about rugby?

Dog Botherer

errlloyd wrote: »

Malcolm Gladwell has a podcast where he inserted a snippet of him making a speech at an event in UPenn. He asks the audience (mostly students) how they can go to a game and cheer on a sport in which young (for nothing in terms of money and little in terms of fame), actively reduce their life expectancy and quality of life.

Do any of you ever feel that about rugby?

The college football system over here is demonically evil. young players who’s careers could be over in a second can’t even monetise themselves. psychotic.

unrelated but lol at Malcolm Gladwell of all people finger wagging about immoral activities with young people.

errlloyd

Dog Botherer wrote: »

unrelated but lol at Malcolm Gladwell of all people finger wagging about immoral activities with young people.

What is this in reference to?

Larbre34

The final pass from McFadden for Try of the Decade was forward, discuss.....

sydthebeat

Larbre34 wrote: »

The final pass from McFadden for Try of the Decade was forward, discuss.....

relative velocity......

Dog Botherer

errlloyd wrote: »

What is this in reference to?

Mod edit: You can slander people elsewhere but not on boards.

errlloyd

Dog Botherer wrote: »

Mod edit: You can slander people elsewhere but not on boards.

It's a tenuous link really.

Dog Botherer

errlloyd wrote: »

It's a tenuous link really.

i think that’s the absolute opposite of tenuous but not really the time or place. wasn’t really planning on having this discussion.

Zzippy

Dog Botherer wrote: »

i think that’s the absolute opposite of tenuous but not really the time or place. wasn’t really planning on having this discussion.

Absolutely correct, this is not the time or the place. If you want to make allegations or insinuations about people do it elsewhere.

AbusesToilets

aloooof wrote: »

I saw someone on Twitter make the case for Jon Davies at 13, and I found it hard to disagree with tbh, definitely in the conversation also.

Had he learnt how to pass then?

Burkie1203

Just been reading the Steve Thompson story. Absolutely frightening stuff. He is roughly the same age as me and any chance of a normal life is over for him. To be unable to remember the highlight of your career which was just 17 years ago is so sad.

awec

I have said before I think there's going to be a rise in post-retirement issues for professional players, particularly those who have started their career in the past decade-ish. You have guys now who have been turned into gym monkeys from their teenage years so they can run over the top of people, and give out and receive monstrous hits.

There are going to be very sad cases like Steve Thompson, but I think there are also going to be guys who suffer physically for the rest of their lives.

Buer

Burkie1203 wrote: »

Just been reading the Steve Thompson story. Absolutely frightening stuff. He is roughly the same age as me and any chance of a normal life is over for him. To be unable to remember the highlight of your career which was just 17 years ago is so sad.

To not be able to always remember his wife's name when speaking to her is much sadder.

The rugby authorities have an obligation to act. If that means an overhaul of the sport, so be it.

Burkie1203

awec wrote: »

I have said before I think there's going to be a rise in post-retirement issues for professional players, particularly those who have started their career in the past decade-ish. You have guys now who have been turned into gym monkeys from their teenage years so they can run over the top of people, and give out and receive monstrous hits.

There are going to be very sad cases like Steve Thompson, but I think there are also going to be guys who suffer physically for the rest of their lives.

Alix Pophams doctor reckon he took 100000 sub concussive blows to the head of varying degrees between training and matches in his career

Cookiemunster

Brian Moores thoughts on the legal side of this.

https://twitter.com/brianmoore666/status/1336412013879291904

swiwi_

The first thing will be proving it’s the rugby as the cause and not simply one of those unfortunate cases of early onset dementia, that just happens to be in an ex-rugby player.

Burkie1203

swiwi_ wrote: »

The first thing will be proving it’s the rugby as the cause and not simply one of those unfortunate cases of early onset dementia, that just happens to be in an ex-rugby player.

I think the number of claimants will grow beyond the few that we currently know about.

Paul Weller

Burkie1203 wrote: »

I think the number of claimants will grow beyond the few that we currently know about.

Agreed...proving it is not the issue...the issue is what do the rugby lawmakers do right now to stop this generation of players...and the next from getting brain injuries

irishbucsfan

Paul Weller wrote: »

Agreed...proving it is not the issue...the issue is what do the rugby lawmakers do right now to stop this generation of players...and the next from getting brain injuries

Well no, proving it really is the issue. Specifically proving that World Rugby and the NGBs in Wales and England are guilty of negligence. Under current circumstances that judgement could be more than enough to put them out of business.

Based on the changes we saw in the NFL after their case, it won't be so much the laws of rugby that will be affected so much as teams needing to completely limit or even totally eliminate the amount of full contact training they are permitted to do.

Paul Weller

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Well no, proving it really is the issue. Specifically proving that World Rugby and the NGBs in Wales and England are guilty of negligence. Under current circumstances that judgement could be more than enough to put them out of business.

Based on the changes we saw in the NFL after their case, it won't be so much the laws of rugby that will be affected so much as teams needing to completely limit or even totally eliminate the amount of full contact training they are permitted to do.

Full contact training eliminated... but no changes in matches? That is a non starter anyways.
And it's not going to be hard to prove that rugby players have suffered brain damage from playing rugby, negligence on the part of unions is not something that comes into this

irishbucsfan

Paul Weller wrote: »

Full contact training eliminated... but no changes in matches? That is a non starter anyways.

I mean limiting the contact in training is specifically one of the things the players are asking for. It's absolutely not a non-starter and it's already been enforced in other sports, in the NFL you're only allowed 14 contact training sessions a year and none of them are allowed to be during pre-season.

And it's not going to be hard to prove that rugby players have suffered brain damage from playing rugby, negligence on the part of unions is not something that comes into this

OK then, can you explain why these 8 players are involved in a test case against the WRU and RFU?

sydthebeat

Paul Weller wrote: »

Full contact training eliminated... but no changes in matches? That is a non starter anyways.
And it's not going to be hard to prove that rugby players have suffered brain damage from playing rugby, negligence on the part of unions is not something that comes into this

Negligence is exactly what will have to be proven.

They will have to show that the IRB were fully aware that the rules of the sport caused the medical injuries

Captain_Crash

irishbucsfan wrote: »

OK then, can you explain why these 8 players are involved in a test case against the WRU and RFU?

We don’t know what the allegations are yet, we just know a case is pending and it’s to do with brain injury. Negligence will likely from the basis of the case, but even if it’s proved that playing rugby is the cause, it doesn’t mean that there was any negligence present.

You can fulfil your duty of care and someone can still get hurt. If they allege what is being reported, they’ll have to show the relevant union failed in their duty of care, which may not be as straightforward one may believe. But again, we don’t know exactly what the suit alleges at this time.

Paul Weller

irishbucsfan wrote: »

I mean limiting the contact in training is specifically one of the things the players are asking for. It's absolutely not a non-starter and it's already been enforced in other sports, in the NFL you're only allowed 14 contact training sessions a year and none of them are allowed to be during pre-season.


OK then, can you explain why these 8 players are involved in a test case against the WRU and RFU?

It has to start somewhere?
It's been known for quite a few years that concussion has effects on long term brain function....and nothing has been done in rugby by the lawmakers..these ex players are not looking for money...they are trying to bring this issue into the open and cause a change I believe... football is having the same issue at the moment and studies are showing that football players are at increased risk of brain injury.. you will always expect the organisations to deny, object, deflect from these facts
But ever since Jeff Astle's death the facts and stats are stacking up....
It's not about proving a union hid or denied or put players at risk... think perhaps along the lines of army deafness....they didn't know.. but it still happened
The laws of rugby have to be changed going forward, anyone saying otherwise is a part of the problem

irishbucsfan

Captain_Crash wrote: »

We don’t know what the allegations are yet, we just know a case is pending and it’s to do with brain injury. Negligence will likely from the basis of the case, but even if it’s proved that playing rugby is the cause, it doesn’t mean that there was any negligence present.

You can fulfil your duty of care and someone can still get hurt. If they allege what is being reported, they’ll have to show the relevant union failed in their duty of care, which may not be as straightforward one may believe. But again, we don’t know exactly what the suit alleges at this time.

I agree completely, however the lawyer has specifically said to the BBC:

We are now in a position where we believe the governing bodies across the rugby world are liable for failing to adequately protect their players on this particular issue

So I think we can assume that negligence will form some basis of it, and the BBC are reporting it as that

irishbucsfan

Paul Weller wrote: »

It has to start somewhere?
It's been known for quite a few years that concussion has effects on long term brain function....and nothing has been done in rugby by the lawmakers..these ex players are not looking for money...they are trying to bring this issue into the open and cause a change I believe... football is having the same issue at the moment and studies are showing that football players are at increased risk of brain injury.. you will always expect the organisations to deny, object, deflect from these facts
But ever since Jeff Astle's death the facts and stats are stacking up....
It's not about proving a union hid or denied or put players at risk... think perhaps along the lines of army deafness....they didn't know.. but it still happened
The laws of rugby have to be changed going forward, anyone saying otherwise is a part of the problem

They are, in fact, looking for money; "tens of millions, maybe even hundreds of millions" according to their lawyer.

And you don't just sue because it "has to start somewhere". Especially when there has in fact been quite a lot of discussion about concussion within rugby for the past decade. To claim "nothing has been done" is just oblivious to the fact that concussion protocols are entirely different today than they were even a decade ago. That doesn't mean more shouldn't happen (and training will be a focus next especially if the players win this case), but to claim nothing has been done is completely and totally wrong.

Captain_Crash

irishbucsfan wrote: »

I agree completely, however the lawyer has specifically said to the BBC:

So I think we can assume that negligence will form some basis of it, and the BBC are reporting it as that

Absolutely agree, my post says negligence will likely be the basis of the case.

thomond2006

Mandating and enforcing limited contact sessions will happen imo. It could be introduced quickly and it doesn't affect the bottom line. Nobody is going to not watch or not attend a game because of it.

In the longer term there is likely to be less games and mandatory rest periods in the off season. The Top 14 season ending in June and starting in August is not going to be a runner.