RugbyRebels

Story from Wales online - https://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/rug ... p-19415814

Basically it seems a London based law firm has been approaching ex-internationals in a bid to support a claim for chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE), a degenerative disease with no cure that can only be diagnosed after death. Carl Hayman and Geoff Olds have both confirmed they've been approached.

Given the case in the US against the NFL this could have a pretty nasty impact on unions already struggling..

Gawd. Anyone who has played rugby knows the risks.

Banquo wrote:Gawd. Anyone who has played rugby knows the risks.

Yes and know. Firstly, much of this wasn't really known, and B) even if it was known, sending a concussed player back onto the pitch, is never going to be on the pitch, they've got a brain injury, they cannot be responsible for their actions at that point.

I only wonder why you'd go after the small beans in rugby rather than take a swing at football

This was always going to happen.
I do sit in the camp that says you know the risk when you set foot on the field. I therefore wouldn’t be supportive of any action taken that argues that the players weren’t properly protected as a whole.
If someone can prove their employer forced them to play or train when it was unsafe for them to do so then good luck to them. The Cudmore story from his time at Clermont being a good example.

Mellsblue wrote:This was always going to happen.
I do sit in the camp that says you know the risk when you set foot on the field. I therefore wouldn’t be supportive of any action taken that argues that the players weren’t properly protected as a whole.
If someone can prove their employer forced them to play or train when it was unsafe for them to do so then good luck to them. The Cudmore story from his time at Clermont being a good example.

I suspect all they need is footage of them clearly being concussed/knocked out/very wobbly etc, and being allowed to return to the pitch or allowed to play on. Once they've been badly concussed, it becomes the employers responsibility to get them off in my mind.

The England medic as a for instance suggesting Chris Ashton wasn't concussed and he's always like that because he's Northern would be an interesting one to defend in court, is Rudy free to present the defence?

Digby wrote:The England medic as a for instance suggesting Chris Ashton wasn't concussed and he's always like that because he's Northern would be an interesting one to defend in court, is Rudy free to present the defence?

My natural instinct is to believe the England medic.

Mellsblue wrote:

Digby wrote:The England medic as a for instance suggesting Chris Ashton wasn't concussed and he's always like that because he's Northern would be an interesting one to defend in court, is Rudy free to present the defence?

My natural instinct is to believe the England medic.

It would naturally follow if you're ever in need you'd also believe hiring Rudy would result in a high performing legal team coming to your aid, an elite strike force even

Banquo wrote:Gawd. Anyone who has played rugby knows the risks.

I doubt many players, if any, up until very recently had much idea of the possible long term effects on the brain. Even now you could ask how much do we actually know in order to make informed decisions. Risk awareness; overall risk and the various parameters that make up said risk are not sufficiently known. And of course it involves human beings who are susceptible to different things in different ways.

Banquo wrote:Gawd. Anyone who has played rugby knows the risks.

Mellsblue wrote:I do sit in the camp that says you know the risk when you set foot on the field. I therefore wouldn’t be supportive of any action taken that argues that the players weren’t properly protected as a whole.

Nowadays, yes. Back in the 2000s? Maybe? In the 90s and before? Absolutely not.

There was a culture of "You should be dragged off the pitch if you're injured" and a concussion was treated as something to be laughed off. I have continued playing while concussed and I would be surprised if there was a single person playing in the 90s and early 2000s who wasn't in the same boat. Coincidentally, my memory is shot to pieces, I struggle to concentrate, and my moods are erratic. There are things which I should know and they're just gone from my brain - I forget which side of the car my children sit, people talk about recent visits that I don't recall at all, I can reread books and have them be a complete surprise. On a less serious note, I believe it's come up on the board recently when I swore blind that Itoje and Launchbury had never ever ever played together and was startled by there being about 10 occasions, all of which were games that I had watched.

I still play rugby. I know the risks now and accept them for the sport I love. But back then, I absolutely did not and I have played in many a game where the concussion test was "You're okay, right? Good to carry on? Good, cause we haven't got any subs!"

I've also watched pro games where players clearly did not know where they were or what they were doing being encouraged to keep playing because they were needed (Chris Ashton against South Africa being a prime example - we didn't have a winger on the bench and he was given everything short of smelling salts to keep him on the pitch. Would actually have been better taking him off, as he spent the rest of the match dazed and of very little influence). A badly concussed player is not capable of consenting to continue to play, especially when you have cultivated a culture of "You'll be a pussy if you go off," and have coaches saying, "You're all right, aren't you? We really need you out there."

I don't want rugby to suffer a lawsuit (and I shan't be joining one myself), but it's a bit facile to say "they knew the risks," when we very definitely did not back then.

Puja

Mellsblue wrote:This was always going to happen.
I do sit in the camp that says you know the risk when you set foot on the field. I therefore wouldn’t be supportive of any action taken that argues that the players weren’t properly protected as a whole.
If someone can prove their employer forced them to play or train when it was unsafe for them to do so then good luck to them. The Cudmore story from his time at Clermont being a good example.

I don't think we do know the risk, even now. We are probably more aware of a likelihood increase through playing the game, but are probably a good distance from being able to quantify even that.

Puja wrote:

Banquo wrote:Gawd. Anyone who has played rugby knows the risks.

Mellsblue wrote:I do sit in the camp that says you know the risk when you set foot on the field. I therefore wouldn’t be supportive of any action taken that argues that the players weren’t properly protected as a whole.

Nowadays, yes. Back in the 2000s? Maybe? In the 90s and before? Absolutely not.

There was a culture of "You should be dragged off the pitch if you're injured" and a concussion was treated as something to be laughed off. I have continued playing while concussed and I would be surprised if there was a single person playing in the 90s and early 2000s who wasn't in the same boat. Coincidentally, my memory is shot to pieces, I struggle to concentrate, and my moods are erratic. There are things which I should know and they're just gone from my brain - I forget which side of the car my children sit, people talk about recent visits that I don't recall at all, I can reread books and have them be a complete surprise. On a less serious note, I believe it's come up on the board recently when I swore blind that Itoje and Launchbury had never ever ever played together and was startled by there being about 10 occasions, all of which were games that I had watched.

I still play rugby. I know the risks now and accept them for the sport I love. But back then, I absolutely did not and I have played in many a game where the concussion test was "You're okay, right? Good to carry on? Good, cause we haven't got any subs!"

I've also watched pro games where players clearly did not know where they were or what they were doing being encouraged to keep playing because they were needed (Chris Ashton against South Africa being a prime example - we didn't have a winger on the bench and he was given everything short of smelling salts to keep him on the pitch. Would actually have been better taking him off, as he spent the rest of the match dazed and of very little influence). A badly concussed player is not capable of consenting to continue to play, especially when you have cultivated a culture of "You'll be a pussy if you go off," and have coaches saying, "You're all right, aren't you? We really need you out there."

I don't want rugby to suffer a lawsuit (and I shan't be joining one myself), but it's a bit facile to say "they knew the risks," when we very definitely did not back then.

Puja

This. Just to ask, and it is not pointed in any way, but do you actually know the risks? Or are you aware of a potentially greater likelihood (which is a single parameter of risk)?

That's a genuine question. We use risk in language frequently, when I think we actually mean one of the parameters that makes up an overall risk.

Puja wrote:

Banquo wrote:Gawd. Anyone who has played rugby knows the risks.

Mellsblue wrote:I do sit in the camp that says you know the risk when you set foot on the field. I therefore wouldn’t be supportive of any action taken that argues that the players weren’t properly protected as a whole.

Nowadays, yes. Back in the 2000s? Maybe? In the 90s and before? Absolutely not.

There was a culture of "You should be dragged off the pitch if you're injured" and a concussion was treated as something to be laughed off. I have continued playing while concussed and I would be surprised if there was a single person playing in the 90s and early 2000s who wasn't in the same boat. Coincidentally, my memory is shot to pieces, I struggle to concentrate, and my moods are erratic. There are things which I should know and they're just gone from my brain - I forget which side of the car my children sit, people talk about recent visits that I don't recall at all, I can reread books and have them be a complete surprise. On a less serious note, I believe it's come up on the board recently when I swore blind that Itoje and Launchbury had never ever ever played together and was startled by there being about 10 occasions, all of which were games that I had watched.

I still play rugby. I know the risks now and accept them for the sport I love. But back then, I absolutely did not and I have played in many a game where the concussion test was "You're okay, right? Good to carry on? Good, cause we haven't got any subs!"

I've also watched pro games where players clearly did not know where they were or what they were doing being encouraged to keep playing because they were needed (Chris Ashton against South Africa being a prime example - we didn't have a winger on the bench and he was given everything short of smelling salts to keep him on the pitch. Would actually have been better taking him off, as he spent the rest of the match dazed and of very little influence). A badly concussed player is not capable of consenting to continue to play, especially when you have cultivated a culture of "You'll be a pussy if you go off," and have coaches saying, "You're all right, aren't you? We really need you out there."

I don't want rugby to suffer a lawsuit (and I shan't be joining one myself), but it's a bit facile to say "they knew the risks," when we very definitely did not back then.

Puja

Apologies for being ‘facile’ but as someone who played in four decades from the 70’s and who has been concussed, I was well aware of the risks of Rugby. You can accuse me of being cavalier if you wish. There were undoubtedly some irresponsible coaches about its true, not me in fairness, but a class action against the game as a whole will destroy it imo, and there is personal responsibility, which is what I took and take for the many legacy injuries I now carry about . Perhaps I should have said ‘risk’ rather than risks though.

If anyone has ever played rugby and not realised that they were putting their health at risk then I’d suggest their brain damage was suffered prior to playing rugby.

Mellsblue wrote:If anyone has ever played rugby and not realised that they were putting their health at risk then I’d suggest their brain damage was suffered prior to playing rugby.

Harsh on the U8s

Epaminondas Pules wrote:This. Just to ask, and it is not pointed in any way, but do you actually know the risks? Or are you aware of a potentially greater likelihood (which is a single parameter of risk)?

That's a genuine question. We use risk in language frequently, when I think we actually mean one of the parameters that makes up an overall risk.

Oh, absolutely not! "I know the risks" is just a way of saying, "I want to continue to play rugby and will leverage my cognitive dissonance to ignore the fact that it's probably a terrible idea."

Banquo wrote:Apologies for being ‘facile’ but as someone who played in four decades from the 70’s and who has been concussed, I was well aware of the risks of Rugby. You can accuse me of being cavalier if you wish. There were undoubtedly some irresponsible coaches about its true, not me in fairness, but a class action against the game as a whole will destroy it imo, and there is personal responsibility, which is what I took and take for the many legacy injuries I now carry about

No insult intended - I meant to call the statement facile, not the stater. I am cavalier myself - see above - and I have no desire for there to be a lawsuit against the game, but I also don't think you can blithely drop all responsibility on the players with "they knew the risks". They knew a risk, but concussion was not taken seriously for a long time, partly through lack of knowledge, partly through culture of "manning up" and getting on with it, and partly because the sport didn't want to because they were worried a focus on it would endanger the game.

It's not all the sport's fault and I don't want to see a lawsuit. However, it's not all the players' fault because "they knew the risks" either.

Puja

Puja wrote:

Epaminondas Pules wrote:This. Just to ask, and it is not pointed in any way, but do you actually know the risks? Or are you aware of a potentially greater likelihood (which is a single parameter of risk)?

That's a genuine question. We use risk in language frequently, when I think we actually mean one of the parameters that makes up an overall risk.

Oh, absolutely not! "I know the risks" is just a way of saying, "I want to continue to play rugby and will leverage my cognitive dissonance to ignore the fact that it's probably a terrible idea."

Banquo wrote:Apologies for being ‘facile’ but as someone who played in four decades from the 70’s and who has been concussed, I was well aware of the risks of Rugby. You can accuse me of being cavalier if you wish. There were undoubtedly some irresponsible coaches about its true, not me in fairness, but a class action against the game as a whole will destroy it imo, and there is personal responsibility, which is what I took and take for the many legacy injuries I now carry about

No insult intended - I meant to call the statement facile, not the stater. I am cavalier myself - see above - and I have no desire for there to be a lawsuit against the game, but I also don't think you can blithely drop all responsibility on the players with "they knew the risks". They knew a risk, but concussion was not taken seriously for a long time, partly through lack of knowledge, partly through culture of "manning up" and getting on with it, and partly because the sport didn't want to because they were worried a focus on it would endanger the game.

It's not all the sport's fault and I don't want to see a lawsuit. However, it's not all the players' fault because "they knew the risks" either.

Puja

Perhaps there is no fault at all. I’m not blithely dropping anything on anyone. You play, you accept the consequences.

Mellsblue wrote:If anyone has ever played rugby and not realised that they were putting their health at risk then I’d suggest their brain damage was suffered prior to playing rugby.

The issue is playing someone you already know to have recieved a concussion. Of course they know there's risk but it needs to be correctly managed.I

As u8s have been brought up i now have an u9 ( suspected concussion in u8s) who opted out of tackle practice as he want feeling 100% after a couple of bumps ( no suspected concussion) so didn't want to risk getting another concussion by getting it wrong. So even u8s can now be aware of the risks, but it's not upto them to be responsible once they are concussed, that's my job.

The game is a risk, but whilst the game cannot remove all risk the game knew there was a problem they initially addressed by sticking their head in the sand, and then knew there was a problem they've had to be dragged step by step to the still inadequate but much better provisions around head injuries we have now.

So largely people have assumed some personal risk, but the game can still have a liability toward them. One thing being true doesn't preclude another truth

Raggs wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:If anyone has ever played rugby and not realised that they were putting their health at risk then I’d suggest their brain damage was suffered prior to playing rugby.

The issue is playing someone you already know to have recieved a concussion. Of course they know there's risk but it needs to be correctly managed.

Which is the point I made in my initial post.

Mellsblue wrote:

Raggs wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:If anyone has ever played rugby and not realised that they were putting their health at risk then I’d suggest their brain damage was suffered prior to playing rugby.

The issue is playing someone you already know to have recieved a concussion. Of course they know there's risk but it needs to be correctly managed.

Which is the point I made in my initial post.

Which is the point i responded to in my initial response :p

Raggs wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Raggs wrote:
The issue is playing someone you already know to have recieved a concussion. Of course they know there's risk but it needs to be correctly managed.

Which is the point I made in my initial post.

Which is the point i responded to in my initial response :p

So we agree. MOD.

Digby wrote:The game is a risk, but whilst the game cannot remove all risk the game knew there was a problem they initially addressed by sticking their head in the sand, and then knew there was a problem they've had to be dragged step by step to the still inadequate but much better provisions around head injuries we have now.

So largely people have assumed some personal risk, but the game can still have a liability toward them. One thing being true doesn't preclude another truth

Spot on.

Puja

Players take their own responsibility for playing. They know what the game is, the physical demands and the possibility of getting hurt.
But others have a responsibility too. Parents, coaches, managers, medics, physios, referees, administrators and fellow players should all be looking out for those playing and ensuring anyone who is injured is removed, and those concussed are treated with particular care.