# A blow for Rugby Union....



## Fab Foodie (8 Dec 2020)

This could have a significant impact on Rugby Union as we know it:

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2...ia-landmark-legal-case?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

Soccer and American Football also have the same issue.

Watch Rugby now compared to matches before the Professional age and you’ll see the differences in the style of play, the number of impacts and the power of the players.
The solution for Soccer is fairly straightforward, no more heading, but Rugby Union is a different kettle of puns.

Thoughts?


----------



## Drago (8 Dec 2020)

I played a bit myself up until I joined the army. Unlike soccer, you know full well its a full contact physical sport, and that such physical contact can cause injury, and occasionally even death, and you start each game with this knowledge. If people don't like living with the consequences of their own choices then I hardly see thats the fault of World Rugby.

I don't nevessarily think the power of the players has changed all that much. Even age 20 I was bigger than heavier than the average Lions player is in 2020. I'd say they're probably fitter and better conditioned than they were then, but kinetic energy hasn't changed much in between times.


----------



## Rusty Nails (8 Dec 2020)

Drago said:


> I played a bit myself up until I joined the army. Unlike soccer, you know full well its a full contact physical sport, and that such physical contact can cause injury, and occasionally even death, and you start each game with this knowledge. If people don't like living with the consequences of their own choices then I hardly see thats the fault of World Rugby.
> 
> I don't nevessarily think the power of the players has changed all that much. Even age 20 I was bigger than heavier than the average Lions player is in 2020. I'd say they're probably fitter and better conditioned than they were then, but kinetic energy hasn't changed much in between times.



It never harmed me so it must be OK? What does played 'a bit mean?

The power of players has changed hugely since you played 'a bit' in the last century. Did you play top class rugby against pros who are bulking up and training full-time. The speed is faster and the collisions heavier than they were. I doubt that even you as a callow youth would have lasted 10 minutes of a modern top class game.
Top rugby players have lived with the fact since the game started that they were doing their joints and bones no good at all and were prepared to live with that, possibly having to give up the sport, but it is only more recently that the link to dementia has been better researched and known.
Now that the link is better researched those who run the game have no excuse not to look at ways of mitigating it.
At least young players will have the knowledge of what could happen to them to help them decide their future in the game.


----------



## slowmotion (9 Dec 2020)

The average weight of a top level player has gone up by 25% since 1955. It's now about 16 stone 8 ounces. They probably move a lot faster due to training harder too. That's a big increase in kinetic energy that has to be shed when they impact on another human body.


----------



## Accy cyclist (9 Dec 2020)

Having watched professional football for 50 years i'd say the famous footballers we hear about dying in their late 70's.80's and 90's of dementia (now often blamed on heading the ball) were lucky to live so long,getting well paid for their efforts. Many industrial workers die of work related illnesses and we just accept it. Why can't professional footballers do the same?


----------



## steveindenmark (9 Dec 2020)

Next we will have boxers taking action against their sporting body. The risks of brain damage through any contact sport is obvious at the outset. After getting clattered a couple of times at rugby, it is even more obvious. These guys had the opportunity to hang their boots up at any stage and walk away and chose not not to. At what stage do they take responsibility for their own actions and stop trying to blame someone else.


----------



## winjim (9 Dec 2020)

Accy cyclist said:


> Having watched professional football for 50 years i'd say the famous footballers we hear about dying in their late 70's.80's and 90's of dementia (now often blamed on heading the ball) were lucky to live so long,getting well paid for their efforts. Many industrial workers die of work related illnesses and we just accept it. Why can't professional footballers do the same?


Health and safety is taken seriously in the workplace. See:

https://osha.europa.eu/en/safety-and-health-legislation/european-directives


----------



## Cycleops (9 Dec 2020)

Accy cyclist said:


> Many industrial workers die of work related illnesses and we just accept it. Why can't professional footballers do the same?


I think injuries from the work environment should of course be fully accountable but I’m afraid a developing blame culture is responsible for these claims in sport that we seem to be seeing more of.


----------



## dave r (9 Dec 2020)

winjim said:


> Health and safety is taken seriously in the workplace. See:
> 
> https://osha.europa.eu/en/safety-and-health-legislation/european-directives



Yes it is now in most work places, but in the past that wasn't the case, and even now there are a minority of firms operating that take little notice of health and safety


----------



## dave r (9 Dec 2020)

winjim said:


> And you're fine with that?



No I'm not fine with that, but I'm retired now and no longer in the work place, when I was working I was not in a position to do anything about it when I came across it, as a labourer, van driver, forklift driver my option were limited.


----------



## winjim (9 Dec 2020)

dave r said:


> No I'm not fine with that, but I'm retired now and no longer in the work place, when I was working I was not in a position to do anything about it when I came across it, as a labourer, van driver, forklift driver my option were limited.


I mean it reinforces my point really. H&S in the workplace was lax, so we did something about it. The poster I was responding to seemed to think we are fine with poor H&S at work. We are not.

Well, we might be by the end of the month...


----------



## Drago (9 Dec 2020)

Rusty Nails said:


> It never harmed me so it must be OK? What does played 'a bit mean?


Played for Olney, tried out for the Saints 3rds but joined the Army before that ran its course and when I left the green machine 4 years later I had lost interest. So I was playing at the very lowest rung of what would today be semi-pro.

I wasn't harmed, but I never suggested it could not cause harm. I am suggesting that we all played knowing full well the injury of risk or death, and chose to play nevertheless. That's what 'contact sport' means.



slowmotion said:


> The average weight of a top level player has gone up by 25% since 1955. It's now about 16 stone 8 ounces. They probably move a lot faster due to training harder too. That's a big increase in kinetic energy that has to be shed when they impact on another human body.



That's still a stone lighter than I was when I played. A kg of mass at X speed still carries the same energy today as it did 30 years ago - they have more KG moving, but then the opposing player has more KG to counter with, but its difficult to be sure of anything size wise as prior to the professional game records were not kept. As aforementioned, I was bigger then - and now - than the average Lions player is today, and I was far from being alone in that.

I see little evidence that they're running any faster - increased mass at that level is incompatible with speed and acceleration, too much intertia. That's why sprinters tend not to be built like Michael Clark-Duncan.

But the bottom line is we all knew it was dangerous. in a sense it's little more than a team-played martial art, and people would breaks bones, spines, end up wheelchair bound and occasionally die. Knowing this, we still chose to play. The current mob who are moaning also knew this, and were still happy to take the pay cheque for each pro game. Why should World rugby be responsible for someone else's freely made life choices?


----------



## lazybloke (9 Dec 2020)

Accy cyclist said:


> Many industrial workers die of work related illnesses and we just accept it. Why can't professional footballers do the same?


Are you really suggesting that avoidable deaths should be accepted?


----------



## winjim (9 Dec 2020)

I'm pretty sure that an 18yo ultra competitive sportsperson is not going to be properly thinking of the consequences of an illness which may develop 30, 40, 50 years down the line. Teenagers have poor risk perception at the best of times.


----------



## Dirk (9 Dec 2020)

I can't see the problem when someone is injured whilst participate willingly in a dangerous sport.
I road raced motorcycles up to international level for the best part of 20 years. You don't ever start a TT race without the knowledge that a simple error, or mechanical failure, could kill you (or worse), yet you still go down Bray Hill at 140mph + when the flag drops.
I would suggest that the majority of people, who rail against dangerous sports, have no capacity to understand the mindset of those who partake of them.


----------



## Fab Foodie (9 Dec 2020)

steveindenmark said:


> Next we will have boxers taking action against their sporting body. The risks of brain damage through any contact sport is obvious at the outset. After getting clattered a couple of times at rugby, it is even more obvious. These guys had the opportunity to hang their boots up at any stage and walk away and chose not not to. At what stage do they take responsibility for their own actions and stop trying to blame someone else.


Brain damage has long been known in boxing, so if you’re boxing now the risk is clear.
In Football and Rugby it’s a pretty new phenomena, and in Rugby Union it would appear the effects visible at a much younger age and potentially in higher numbers and seem to correlate with the rise of the professional game. So it’s probably change in the nature of Rugby which is potentially the cause of the ‘New’ injuries. 
Now, there are lots of caveats there, but in simple terms this is a new thing and whether the RFU had a duty of care will be seen in the courts. I think ‘blame culture’ is unfair, much H&S law came about through cases being brought by employees against employers.

In any case (and this is the point of the thread), knowing what we now know, what is to be done?


----------



## Rocky (9 Dec 2020)

Back when Steve Thompson was winning the World Cup, I don’t think we knew the extent of the dangers of concussion on early onset dementia. Just as we didn’t realise the problems caused by heading the ball. We do now.....and the least the games’ lawmakers can do is to take the threat seriously. F1 used to be a lethal sport but it has changed massively over the last 25 years.


----------



## winjim (9 Dec 2020)

Dirk said:


> I can't see the problem when someone is injured whilst participate willingly in a dangerous sport.
> I road raced motorcycles up to international level for the best part of 20 years. You don't ever start a TT race without the knowledge that a simple error, or mechanical failure, could kill you (or worse), yet you still go down Bray Hill at 140mph + when the flag drops.
> I would suggest that the majority of people, who rail against dangerous sports, have no capacity to understand the mindset of those who partake of them.


That's why they need protecting from themselves.


----------



## dave r (9 Dec 2020)

winjim said:


> I mean it reinforces my point really. H&S in the workplace was lax, so we did something about it. The poster I was responding to seemed to think we are fine with poor H&S at work. We are not.
> 
> Well, we might be by the end of the month...



It's still is lax in places, there are firms who are still operating today with little or no regard to health and safety, often the managers in these places are only interested in the product going out the door on time and have no concern about how that was achieved, and if someone on the shop floor kicks off about it they're shown the door. I agree with you that its wrong and needs sorting, but unless someone steps forward and takes action to alert the health and safety people its not going to happen, and most people aren't going to take action because at the end of the day they need the job.


----------



## Fab Foodie (9 Dec 2020)

Dirk said:


> I can't see the problem when someone is injured whilst participate willingly in a dangerous sport.
> I road raced motorcycles up to international level for the best part of 20 years. You don't ever start a TT race without the knowledge that a simple error, or mechanical failure, could kill you (or worse), yet you still go down Bray Hill at 140mph + when the flag drops.
> I would suggest that the majority of people, who rail against dangerous sports, have no capacity to understand the mindset of those who partake of them.


I think @Brompton Bruce has this covered.
There is risk in all activities. In high risk sports these are known and understood AND the organising bodies play a role where possible in mitigating some of those risks. There is a very good documentary about the origins and rise of driver safety in F1 racing.
Again with caveats, early onset dementia is only just being recognised as a significant risk in professional Rugby - this is a departure from previous norms in the game.
So it’s a watershed moment.
Either we accept its an acceptable risk as we do in TT racing, mountain climbing and other sports and pastimes or we need to make changes. The question is what exactly?


----------



## steveindenmark (9 Dec 2020)

Fab Foodie said:


> Brain damage has long been known in boxing, so if you’re boxing now the risk is clear.
> In Football and Rugby it’s a pretty new phenomena, and in Rugby Union it would appear the effects visible at a much younger age and potentially in higher numbers and seem to correlate with the rise of the professional game. So it’s probably change in the nature of Rugby which is potentially the cause of the ‘New’ injuries.
> Now, there are lots of caveats there, but in simple terms this is a new thing and whether the RFU had a duty of care will be seen in the courts. I think ‘blame culture’ is unfair, much H&S law came about through cases being brought by employees against employers.
> 
> In any case (and this is the point of the thread), knowing what we now know, what is to be done?


As you say, the dangers have been known in boxing for many years. It can be no surprise to anyone that has played rugby that sustained bangs to the head that you receive, will do you no good, long term. I boxed from the age of 7 until I was 23 and I played both codes of rugby from the age of 7 until I was 30. I had far worse bangs to the head in rugby then I did in boxing. If either sport was going to do me serious damage it was certainly going to be rugby.

It will be interesting to see what the courts decide.


----------



## matticus (9 Dec 2020)

Well done @Fab Foodie : i think you've asked a question that we could argue till the end of time! (or we all develop dementia ... )

I can definitely see both sides of this; it seems immoral to not take "reasonable"* measures to reduce injuries - and yet we're talking about well-paid professionals who know it's a violent sport.

*Reasonable: that's a tricky one, isn't it? But it is a word used throughout UK law, and is commonplace in workplace risk assesment: https://www.hse.gov.uk/comah/alarp.htm


> "ALARP" is short for "as low as reasonably practicable". Reasonably practicable involves weighing a risk against the trouble, time and money needed to control it


----------



## Dirk (9 Dec 2020)

Fab Foodie said:


> I think @Brompton Bruce has this covered.
> There is risk in all activities. In high risk sports these are known and understood AND the organising bodies play a role where possible in mitigating some of those risks. There is a very good documentary about the origins and rise of driver safety in F1 racing.
> Again with caveats, early onset dementia is only just being recognised as a significant risk in professional Rugby - this is a departure from previous norms in the game.
> So it’s a watershed moment.
> Either we accept its an acceptable risk as we do in TT racing, mountain climbing and other sports and pastimes or we need to make changes. The question is what exactly?


I'm not against regulations to minimise the effects of dangerous sports; but, at some point it must be accepted that it's impossible to completely eliminate them - which would appear to be the aim of some folk. Some sports are inherently dangerous - that's the attraction of them.


----------



## oldworld (9 Dec 2020)

I love to watch rugby but the size, power and speed of today's players must mean more injuries.
It's a contact sport and dangerous but it'd be a shame if players had to dress up in kit like Gridiron football.


----------



## Fab Foodie (9 Dec 2020)

Dirk said:


> I'm not against regulations to minimise the effects of dangerous sports; but, at some point it must be accepted that it's impossible to completely eliminate them - which would appear to be the aim of some folk. Some sports are inherently dangerous - that's the attraction of them.


I’d agree.
The question is whether Rugby Union is now such a sport?
If it is, should we be playing it in school?


----------



## Fab Foodie (9 Dec 2020)

oldworld said:


> I love to watch rugby but the size, power and speed of today's players must mean more injuries.
> It's a contact sport and dangerous but it'd be a shame if players had to dress up in kit like Gridiron football.


Actually, this issue arose in Gridiron football before Rugby. There is a school of thought/evidence that the safety equipment allows higher impacts which cause more brain injuries.


----------



## matticus (9 Dec 2020)

Yeah, for a few years the experts have been saying that helmets have done no good in Gridiron: see also taking head-guards away from olympic boxers.


----------



## Dirk (9 Dec 2020)

Fab Foodie said:


> Either we accept its an acceptable risk as we do in TT racing, mountain climbing and other sports and pastimes or we need to make changes. The question is what exactly?


Which begs the question - who deems what is an 'acceptable' risk. Someone with good intentions, or the participants themselves?


----------



## Fab Foodie (9 Dec 2020)

Dirk said:


> Which begs the question - who deems what is an 'acceptable' risk. Someone with good intentions, or the participants themselves?


Indeed. It also matters who is employed by whom to do what, and what is a 'reasonable' duty of care?


----------



## cisamcgu (9 Dec 2020)

Drago said:


> I played a bit myself up until I joined the army. Unlike soccer, you know full well its a full contact physical sport, and that such physical contact can cause injury, and occasionally even death, and you start each game with this knowledge. If people don't like living with the consequences of their own choices then I hardly see thats the fault of World Rugby.
> 
> I don't nevessarily think the power of the players has changed all that much. *Even age 20 I was bigger than heavier than the average Lions player is in 2020*. I'd say they're probably fitter and better conditioned than they were then, but kinetic energy hasn't changed much in between times.


Was this after you got close to a 4 minute mile ?


----------



## Tripster (9 Dec 2020)

Everyone’s perception of risk is different. What one sees as dangerous, another doesn’t. That’s the reason Peter Hickman races the Isle of Man at ridiculous speeds or someone free climbs hundreds of feet up a rock face without ropes. I played Rugby League from 7 until mid 30’s at a good level and coached by a few pro’s from Super League. I also played against ex pro’s and even then the speed, strength and reactions where light years away from mere mortals. The game is faster and the athletes fitter but I don’t think the contact is as aggressive to the head as years ago, “bring back the biff” is a good YouTube google to see the real extent of the Aussie aggression.
Kids are protected more now at grass roots but ultimately it’s their choice, and parents to play. You can always choose not to be involved.
As for Health & Safety at work...... Safety never sleeps except on a Saturday & Sunday. 6 months after working on a site I was emailed a letter telling me during an investigation it was concluded I and many others had been exposed to asbestos for 3 months. It’s ok though, a letter will be put on your file for future reference. When I asked for the full report and findings I was ignored by head of EHS for a further 3 months before been told it’s not relevant or needed. 
Or maybe the near miss incident where someone nearly fell through loose scaffolding..... ah that’s coming down today and besides too many near misses will squidgy the figures and look like an unsafe site. Then it’s more paperwork and site visits....
Has someone used a chemical without checking an MSDS or left a flogger on the floor where someone could trip, well that’s a different story but anything major??? Waste of oxygen in my opinion


----------



## Phaeton (9 Dec 2020)

winjim said:


> That's why they need protecting from themselves.


Pretty sure that wasn't intended to be as condescending as it came across, just because you don't like something why should it be banned, if you follow the thought through we cyclists are doomed.


dave r said:


> It's still is lax in places,.


I was in Smyths Toys on Sunday there was a young lady/girl (Sorry PC folk) that claimed one of these mobile set of steps, then as she couldn't reach the top shelf climbed onto the bars to get up higher


Fab Foodie said:


> If it is, should we be playing it in school?


The school game is far different from the professional game


Dirk said:


> Which begs the question - who deems what is an 'acceptable' risk. Someone with good intentions, or the participants themselves?


That is the BIG question, at what point do the sport haters get control, but I like the F1 analogy, in the 1970's Jackie Stewart walked away as he was sick of losing his friends, since then he's worked to improve the sport, weekend before last Grosjean survived a crash with only burnt hands & foot, which even 3 years ago would not have been survivable, possibly even last year.


----------



## Mr Celine (9 Dec 2020)

Drago said:


> Played for Olney, tried out for the Saints 3rds but joined the Army before that ran its course and when I left the green machine 4 years later I had lost interest. So I was playing at the very lowest rung of what would today be semi-pro.
> 
> I wasn't harmed, but I never suggested it could not cause harm. I am suggesting that we all played knowing full well the injury of risk or death, and chose to play nevertheless. That's what 'contact sport' means.
> 
> ...









Do you think he would get a game today?


----------



## winjim (9 Dec 2020)

Phaeton said:


> Pretty sure that wasn't intended to be as condescending as it came across, just because you don't like something why should it be banned, if you follow the thought through we cyclists are doomed.


Didn't mean to be condescending, just pointing out that competitive sportspeople will take huge amounts of risk in order to win. If they didn't then they wouldn't be competitive. See also the threads on doping and other forms of cheating. They will bend and stretch the rules as much as they can possibly get away with in order to gain an advantage so it's up to the sport's regulators to develop and enforce rules which encourage fair play and reduce risk to an acceptable level.


----------



## Tripster (9 Dec 2020)

Mr Celine said:


> View attachment 562500
> 
> 
> Do you think he would get a game today?


Well this guy did, and in an arguably tougher time and sport. For many years he ripped teams and bigger guys apart


----------



## Rusty Nails (9 Dec 2020)

cisamcgu said:


> Was this after you got close to a 4 minute mile ?



The older I get the better I was.


----------



## Tripster (9 Dec 2020)

Phaeton said:


> Pretty sure that wasn't intended to be as condescending as it came across, just because you don't like something why should it be banned, if you follow the thought through we cyclists are doomed.


It probably was


----------



## jowwy (9 Dec 2020)

i find this claim a bit odd - as the one of the claimants retired from rugby due to a serious neck injury, only to overturn his retirement, cause he missed playing the game........surely he knew then, that this game has a serious impact on your life going forward


----------



## Tripster (9 Dec 2020)

Only 8 players bringing the case out of how many thousands of pro players.


----------



## Dayvo (9 Dec 2020)

I played rugby (union - soft southern Jessie) from the age of 13 until I was 35. I played mostly in the front row (not hooker) and was lucky never to sustain an injury worse than a dislocated little finger. 

I stopped playing in 1995 just prior to when lifting in the line-out was allowed, which IMO was one of the reasons why strength and fitness levels had to be improved acoss the whole strata of the game from (amateur) international players to lower club level players and even school players. And that was 25 years ago.

Today, the size, coupled with speed and strength, added to the fact that modern tactics with the (literally) giants of the game holding on to the ball longer, has made the game _almost _an accident waiting to happen at any moment. 

I’m not sure what can be done to prevent these kind of injuries and the repercussions later on in life. Maybe tackling ONLY between the knees and ribs, and only ONE tackler per ball carrier. These laws would need to be very strictly enforced with RED cards/suspensions being issued to prevent/curtail dangerous play.


----------



## matticus (9 Dec 2020)

There are a lot of posts here that don't seem to understand grey areas. Not sure I can be bothered to address any individually ...


----------



## Tripster (9 Dec 2020)

Further to protecting kids in contact sport, I have a question.
My son is 10, he does martial arts. He also does Krav Maga. Krav is not a martial art it’s a form of Israel military self defence. 
Parts of it are changed, altered as the response to an attack is aggressive and designed to injure, so you can make an escape rather than become involved in a fight. He can defend against knife attacks, get out of head locks, block and counter to the throat or escape from the grip of someone holding his coat etc. During sessions they will spar with only a gumshield and gloves. No head guards. It’s controlled aggression but even so it results in a bloody nose or fat lip, often one will be in tears. What’s the reason ? Because in real life, in the street or playground they don’t have soft hats on and need to experience been hit in the face so ultimately they can stay focused and respond if ever the time comes. They are taking knocks to the head. I allow this, I see the reason, my son enjoys the sparring most and he is a gentle, soft natured child. Does this make me irresponsible or a bad parent who risks my sons future health ???


----------



## Cycleops (9 Dec 2020)

winjim said:


> That's why they need protecting from themselves.


By the nanny state?


----------



## Fab Foodie (9 Dec 2020)

Phaeton said:


> Pretty sure that wasn't intended to be as condescending as it came across, just because you don't like something why should it be banned, if you follow the thought through we cyclists are doomed.
> I was in Smyths Toys on Sunday there was a young lady/girl (Sorry PC folk) that claimed one of these mobile set of steps, then as she couldn't reach the top shelf climbed onto the bars to get up higher
> The school game is far different from the professional game
> That is the BIG question, at what point do the sport haters get control, but I like the F1 analogy, in the 1970's Jackie Stewart walked away as he was sick of losing his friends, since then he's worked to improve the sport, weekend before last Grosjean survived a crash with only burnt hands & foot, which even 3 years ago would not have been survivable, possibly even last year.


Couple of points. 
I'm not sure anyone here is advocating banning anything. 
Professional RU has just turned a corner from possibly/slightly risky to a more certain or provable level of risk - that's a step-change that requires reconsideration.

The school game is following the professional game. My bosses 3 sons all play at their private school to a high standard, they have played since dots. They have definitely noticed injuries and the severity of those injuries increasing. The boys themselves are really strapping , fast powerful lads, with a lot of muscle-mass and power in still-developing bodies. They play a lot of games, not just during the winter 'Season' but Summer tours too. Early damage won't recover. Last night a relative young player was interviewed with dementia already. This could be the tip of a larger iceberg.

The Jackie Stewart documentary was the one I was referring to. It's a harrowing watch. F1 is taking its responsibilities seriously and maybe Rugby has reached Stewart's turning point.

I love watching Rugby, and will watch both codes, but sometimes the sheer physicality makes me wince....now it seems rightfully.


----------



## Tripster (9 Dec 2020)

matticus said:


> There are a lot of posts here that don't seem to understand grey areas. Not sure I can be bothered to address any individually ...


Is that not the point of a discussion ? You may find you enlighten some and that you are too enlightened by others


----------



## matticus (9 Dec 2020)

Dayvo said:


> ...
> Today, the size, coupled with speed and strength, added to the fact that modern tactics with the (literally) giants of the game holding on to the ball longer, has made the game _almost _an accident waiting to happen at any moment.
> 
> I’m not sure what can be done to prevent these kind of injuries and the repercussions later on in life. Maybe tackling ONLY between the knees and ribs, and only ONE tackler per ball carrier. These laws would need to be very strictly enforced with RED cards/suspensions being issued to prevent/curtail dangerous play.


As a player (soft or otherwise!), where would you say most of the serious impacts come from? On telly we only notice the nasty clash-of-heads stuff i.e. where a player ends up on the floor or with a cut, resulting in slo-mo replays.
Are these the main impact?
Are they being reduced by the stricter laws on tackles-above-the-shoulders?
Is the scrum significant?


----------



## Fab Foodie (9 Dec 2020)

Tripster said:


> Further to protecting kids in contact sport, I have a question.
> My son is 10, he does martial arts. He also does Krav Maga. Krav is not a martial art it’s a form of Israel military self defence.
> Parts of it are changed, altered as the response to an attack is aggressive and designed to injure, so you can make an escape rather than become involved in a fight. He can defend against knife attacks, get out of head locks, block and counter to the throat or escape from the grip of someone holding his coat etc. During sessions they will spar with only a gumshield and gloves. No head guards. It’s controlled aggression but even so it results in a bloody nose or fat lip, often one will be in tears. What’s the reason ? Because in real life, in the street or playground they don’t have soft hats on and need to experience been hit in the face so ultimately they can stay focused and respond if ever the time comes. They are taking knocks to the head. I allow this, I see the reason, my son enjoys the sparring most and he is a gentle, soft natured child. Does this make me irresponsible or a bad parent who risks my sons future health ???


Maybe. Only time will tell.


----------



## Tripster (9 Dec 2020)

Fab Foodie said:


> Couple of points.
> I'm not sure anyone here is advocating banning anything.
> Professional RU has just turned a corner from possibly/slightly risky to a more certain or provable level of risk - that's a step-change that requires reconsideration.
> 
> ...


Twenty years ago the only thing in Rugby Union that took a blow was the ball as it was kicked from end to end for the millionth time... much better game now though


----------



## winjim (9 Dec 2020)

Cycleops said:


> By the nanny state?


I wear a seatbelt every time I drive.


----------



## Fab Foodie (9 Dec 2020)

Cycleops said:


> By the nanny state?


Yawn....


----------



## Tripster (9 Dec 2020)

Fab Foodie said:


> Maybe. Only time will tell.


Elaborate ?


----------



## matticus (9 Dec 2020)

Tripster said:


> Is that not the point of a discussion ? You may find you enlighten some and that you are too enlightened by others


Ideally - yes! But I've wasted enough of my life on internet discussion; much of it could have been avoided if I'd learned some lessons earlier :P


----------



## Tripster (9 Dec 2020)

matticus said:


> Ideally - yes! But I've wasted enough of my life on internet discussion; much of it could have been avoided if I'd learned some lessons earlier :P


Good point, well argued


----------



## Fab Foodie (9 Dec 2020)

Tripster said:


> Elaborate ?


Really? Only time will tell whether your son's participation in his Martial Art has had any deleterious effects. Based on past history, probably not, but that was also true of Rugby.


----------



## Fab Foodie (9 Dec 2020)

Tripster said:


> Only 8 players bringing the case out of how many thousands of pro players.


And what if this is the tip of the iceberg?


----------



## matticus (9 Dec 2020)

Tripster said:


> What’s the reason ? Because in real life, in the street or playground they don’t have soft hats on and need to experience been hit in the face so ultimately they can stay focused and respond if ever the time comes. They are taking knocks to the head. I allow this, I see the reason, my son enjoys the sparring most and he is a gentle, soft natured child.* Does this make me irresponsible or a bad parent who risks my sons future health ???*


Tricky. Could be either?


----------



## fossyant (9 Dec 2020)

CTE is an issue in many sports, nothing new. American football and boxing are the most public. Also MTB - downhill. Recent case of a top class rider taking his own life - depression brought on by many head injuries.

What do we do, ban the lot ?


----------



## matticus (9 Dec 2020)

fossyant said:


> CTE is an issue in many sports, nothing new. American football and boxing are the most public. Also MTB - downhill. Recent case of a top class rider taking his own life - depression brought on by many head injuries.
> 
> What do we do, ban the lot ?


Yes. Or do nothing.

There are no other options.

(happy now @Tripster ?? )


----------



## Tripster (9 Dec 2020)

Fab Foodie said:


> Really? Only time will tell whether your son's participation in his Martial Art has had any deleterious effects. Based on past history, probably not, but that was also true of Rugby.


Sorry, I thought you was going to quote some facts. Based on past history of even rugby I would say it’s not a huge risk. Has anyone calculated the number of retired contact sport professional & amateur athletes and the percentage with dementia and compared to those who played no contact sport, had no obvious head trauma and still suffered from a dementia illness ? 
Making changes to help improve the sport like the reduction in attacks to the head via high tackles is a good thing but rugby is a contact sport and should remain so. I am sure you can google the parties opposed to the Isle Of Man TT and their thoughts of spectators who watch from the sides. Similar to yourself enjoying Rugby and watching but then concern for the injuries


----------



## Tripster (9 Dec 2020)

matticus said:


> Yes. Or do nothing.
> 
> There are no other options.
> 
> (happy now @Tripster ?? )


Perfect and to the point


----------



## matticus (9 Dec 2020)

Tripster said:


> Has anyone calculated the number of retired contact sport professional & amateur athletes and the percentage with dementia and compared to those who played no contact sport, had no obvious head trauma and still suffered from a dementia illness ?


Yes.

(Read the link at the start of the thread!)


----------



## Fab Foodie (9 Dec 2020)

fossyant said:


> CTE is an issue in many sports, nothing new. American football and boxing are the most public. Also MTB - downhill. Recent case of a top class rider taking his own life - depression brought on by many head injuries.
> 
> What do we do, ban the lot ?


Nobody is advocating banning anything!!!!


----------



## fossyant (9 Dec 2020)

I've smacked my head enough times (proper concussion) to know it's not pleasant and takes many weeks/months to recover. That's was when I was younger - full on hospital stays.

Without getting into a debate, at least twice on the bike in more recent years have I landed on my head, but I had a lid on, and only had a slightly fuzzy head for a few weeks, rather than full on concussion. 

It's not good constantly getting your head hit - heading a football hurts.


----------



## Accy cyclist (9 Dec 2020)

lazybloke said:


> Are you really suggesting that avoidable deaths should be accepted?


Have you ever worked on a building site?


----------



## Tripster (9 Dec 2020)

matticus said:


> Yes.
> 
> (Read the link at the start of the thread!)


Unless I missed something I cannot see a detailed investigation into all previous, retired pro & amateur athletes against non contact sport dementia sufferers. Maybe need to direct me to that. Pro is more Policed but amateur is very much not in days gone by. Statistics from that area would be interesting.
Dementia is increasing for many reasons and statistically how many players from say a pro rugby team are likely to get dementia compared to a group of netball players where little contact to head ? I bet it’s not that much different because other issues such as diabetes, living longer are also contributing factors to dementia. Diabetes is on the rise and sport plays a part in reducing that. 
My dad is late stage dementia. Never played contact sport, only cycled. Never a blow to his head and only broke a bone in his hand years ago. His dementia is attributed to his diabetes, type 2, that he has had since his. 50’s.


----------



## Tripster (9 Dec 2020)

Accy cyclist said:


> Have you ever worked on a building site?


Probably similar to a power station, especially overseas


----------



## matticus (9 Dec 2020)

Tripster said:


> Dementia is increasing for many reasons and statistically how many players from say a pro rugby team are likely to get dementia compared to a group of netball players where little contact to head ? I bet it’s not that much different because other issues such as diabetes, living longer are also contributing factors to dementia


The medical stats people take account of other known factors. As you say, living longer is a big factor; so you'd accept studies of sports-people under 60 (compared to others the same age) as strong evidence?

And I think you need to define "not that much different" before we dig into the actual numbers!


----------



## Tripster (9 Dec 2020)

matticus said:


> The medical stats people take account of other known factors. As you say, living longer is a big factor; so you'd accept studies of sports-people under 60 (compared to others the same age) as strong evidence?
> 
> And I think you need to define "not that much different" before we dig into the actual numbers!


Your reply seems like you are on the defensive looking for an argument. I am not. As I have no medical evidence I merely gave my opinion and should you or anyone have anything to support or counter then I would be very interested and open to reading it. As I genuinely played for many years, rather than some who have commented who merely watched, I know the reason these people walk on a field or sling a leg over a bike despite high risk.


----------



## tom73 (9 Dec 2020)

Funny this came up on our desk at home is over 100 paper on the whole subject. Mrs 73 has spent the last few years going her masters on it.
So it's been a hot topic at home. What I do know is It's complex and a wide range of view are held on just what is going on and to what level the risks are.
It all comes down to the risk and what was know at the time even basic head injury management has changed over the last few years. As more is known about head injury and it's risks. For years risk was known but the management of head injury was not all it needed to be. It mostly came down to management at the time not on limiting the risk over time.
CTE has been known about but the extent of the possible link to a much wider field of sport or day to day injury has not been fully understood. Or to what extent it's a problem. A lot has gone it this in the last fews years. Many sports are still not up to speed on this or have even the basics right.


----------



## Tripster (9 Dec 2020)

If you gave the facts to all players today and asked them if they wished to continue or retire then pretty sure nearly all would happily walk back on a field and continue. Ultimately the choice is theirs.


----------



## matticus (9 Dec 2020)

> As I have no medical evidence I merely gave my opinion and should you or anyone have anything to support or counter then I would be very interested and open to reading it. As I genuinely played for many years, rather than some who have commented who merely watched, I know the reason these people walk on a field or sling a leg over a bike despite high risk.


So your opinion is based on:
- your attitude to the risks,
- your knowledge of the attitudes of others
- your single example of playing without suffering damage
- a single example of a dementia sufferer with no contact sport history.

In MY OPINION that is very weak evidence. IMO head injuries are very likely to lead to brain damage.(have you looked into boxing?)
Research quoted at https://www.alzheimers.org.uk/blog/football-heading-dementia-risk is very strongly supportive of this.

(p.s. it's quite funny to make this accusation:


Tripster said:


> you are on the defensive looking for an argument.


Your posts are _ripe _with argumentative rhetoric! Just my opinion, of course  )


----------



## byegad (9 Dec 2020)

Dirk said:


> I can't see the problem when someone is injured whilst participate willingly in a dangerous sport.
> I road raced motorcycles up to international level for the best part of 20 years. You don't ever start a TT race without the knowledge that a simple error, or mechanical failure, could kill you (or worse), yet you still go down Bray Hill at 140mph + when the flag drops.
> I would suggest that the majority of people, who rail against dangerous sports, have no capacity to understand the mindset of those who partake of them.


I agree, to a point. But racing motorcyclists wear leathers or better, body armour and very good helmets. There's a difference between taking a risk, and not mitigating it to the best of your/technology's ability and doing the TT course flat out and naked.


----------



## Tripster (9 Dec 2020)

matticus said:


> So your opinion is based on:
> - your attitude to the risks, *every contact sport player does this*
> - your knowledge of the attitudes of others *no*
> - your single example of playing without suffering damage *again, no. I have many past and present friends and relatives still in the sport who at present none suffer*
> ...


I made the quote regarding you seeming argumentative because I am not challenging the information or saying any of it is incorrect. I believe we all take a risk that’s acceptable to us and sure Rugby players are aware of risks as they can educate themselves but still choose to play. I disagree with taking RFU or the like to court for later life illnesses.
Improve the game, make adjustments but ultimately its a players choice.
If this is argumentative Rhetoric then I best leave it there and move on.
Rhetoric Im from Bradford, no persuasive speek from an uneducated fool like me. I am not part of the Elitist. Remember I played League, not Union


----------



## Phaeton (9 Dec 2020)

Tripster said:


> Your reply seems like you are on the defensive looking for an argument..


His MO has not changed then, use the Ignore button you don't have to read the claptrap that way.


----------



## matticus (9 Dec 2020)

Tripster said:


> Rhetoric Im from Bradford, no persuasive speek from an uneducated fool like me. I am not part of the Elitist. Remember I played League, not Union


In that case sir, I applaud your use of rhetorical question, despite your poor northern education preventing you from knowing it!

Meanwhile:


Tripster said:


> I believe we all take a risk that’s acceptable to us and sure Rugby players are aware of risks as they can educate themselves but still choose to play. I disagree with taking RFU or the like to court for later life illnesses.
> Improve the game, make adjustments but ultimately its a players choice.


I mostly agree with that; the problem is with long-term effects. Athletes very often are not aware of these, and research DOES progress - you cannot say that the first international rugby players knew they were risking dementia in their 40s.
It's even worse with young athletes starting out.


----------



## Fab Foodie (9 Dec 2020)

Accy cyclist said:


> Have you ever worked on a building site?


That's irrelevant!


----------



## Fab Foodie (9 Dec 2020)

matticus said:


> I mostly agree with that; the problem is with long-term effects. Athletes very often are not aware of these, and research DOES progress - you cannot say that the first international rugby players knew they were risking dementia in their 40s.
> It's even worse with young athletes starting out.



I think this is central to the debate, and these recent cases may in time change peoples attitudes to playing RU.
The ill-effects of many activities take time to show-through in a population to the extent that warrants any reconsideration of that activity. Working with Asbestos, Mercury, Thalidomide, Smoking etc. whereas other things like rock-climbing are a bit more self-evident.


----------



## Tripster (9 Dec 2020)

matticus said:


> In that case sir, I applaud your use of rhetorical question, despite your poor northern education preventing you from knowing it!
> *yes just another one of those Frank Gallagher type, probably voted for Brexit too*
> Meanwhile:
> 
> ...


Nope and nor did World Rugby or the RFU so why should they be held accountable ? Make improvements now and for the future


----------



## Tripster (9 Dec 2020)

byegad said:


> I agree, to a point. But racing motorcyclists wear leathers or better, body armour and very good helmets. There's a difference between taking a risk, and not mitigating it to the best of your/technology's ability and doing the TT course flat out and naked.


To be fair the high tech kit ain’t saving you on Ballascary. Leathers or naked the risk is very much the same if you hit a wall. To a racer the risk outweighs the adrenaline buzz, the excitement, the glory, everything. If you say you may die they will still race. If you say you may get dementia the player still plays. Difference been . Mcpint, Hicky, Harrison won’t take the Isle of Man to court years down the line for injuries sustained


----------



## Fab Foodie (9 Dec 2020)

Tripster said:


> Nope and nor did World Rugby or the RFU so why should they be held accountable ? *Make improvements now and for the future*


I hope that was implied in my original post those not directly stated.
What might they be? Maybe they should all play RL ;-)


----------



## Tripster (9 Dec 2020)

Fab Foodie said:


> I think this is central to the debate, and these recent cases may in time change peoples attitudes to playing RU.
> The ill-effects of many activities take time to show-through in a population to the extent that warrants any reconsideration of that activity. Working with Asbestos, Mercury, Thalidomide, Smoking etc. whereas other things like rock-climbing are a bit more self-evident.


Should the, for example, RFU be held accountable though even if they didn’t have medical evidence available at the time ? 
There is a real possibility of dementia even if not playing contact sport. I disregard boxing here because I don’t think it’s comparable to any other contact sport other than MMA for example.


----------



## Tripster (9 Dec 2020)

Fab Foodie said:


> I hope that was implied in my original post those not directly stated.
> What might they be? Maybe they should all play RL ;-)


It was 
In all honest League is a poor relation to Union now. Union was dire when I was playing. Big fat beer bellies and kick and chase stuff. League was fast, entertaining and full of athletes. It failed to expand and grow and Union is a bigger spectacle, played worldwide and the players are now superb athletes. Hate to say it but I would stick with Union.( That’s Rugby Union not the European one)

Policing the a
high tackles and attacks to the head are an obvious positive. I am not so sure about the shoulder charge. Unless it’s directed at the head then I feel it’s part of the game. A tackler can get his body position all wrong and his head positioned on the wrong side of the attackers body. His head collides with a hip, a knee, or is impacted into the ground as the attacker falls onto him. What happens then ? Penalise the tackler for crap execution ? Penalise the attacker for failing to preempt the crap body position and take evasive action and not land on his bonce ? It’s endless


----------



## Fab Foodie (9 Dec 2020)

Tripster said:


> Should the, for example, RFU be held accountable though even if they didn’t have medical evidence available at the time ?
> There is a real possibility of dementia even if not playing contact sport. I disregard boxing here because I don’t think it’s comparable to any other contact sport other than MMA for example.


Well as I understand it, that's for the court-case to decide.

The link between boxing and brain damage has been evident for a while. If 2 consenting people agree to beating each-other about the head in the hope that one of them gets knocked-out knowing the potential damage, that's their look-out. Exciting though it is, I no longer watch boxing or any kind of fighting where being beaten on the bonce is part of the sport.

Much the same as the TT racer, however, he is primarily putting only himself at risk, not others (OK, Spectators can also be killed).

But, for RU, this seems like it's new evidence, and if the RFU were aware and did nothing about it, then they may have liability. If they did not, here is the warning shot to make changes to the game AND for players to better know the risks they are taking. 
Seems quite straightforward to me.

However, it is also a team-game rather than an individual pursuit which also means that one side is causing damage to another as well.


EDITED - For clarity


----------



## accountantpete (9 Dec 2020)

Rugby League will have a lot to answer for then


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjLC_vqhfZ0


----------



## Dirk (9 Dec 2020)

byegad said:


> I agree, to a point. But racing motorcyclists wear leathers or better, body armour and very good helmets. There's a difference between taking a risk, and not mitigating it to the best of your/technology's ability and doing the TT course flat out and naked.


You've obviously never chucked a bike up the road at 100mph+.
Leathers just keep all the mess in a nice package for the medics.


----------



## Fab Foodie (9 Dec 2020)

This was the chap I referred to earlier that was on the TV News yesterday:

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2...at-i-know-now-id-have-been-a-lot-more-careful

Revealing in a number of ways....

Also:
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2...interview-rugby-union-dementia-special-report


----------



## lazybloke (9 Dec 2020)

Accy cyclist said:


> Have you ever worked on a building site?


I'm at one now.

Risks aren't routinely accepted until they've been significantly mitigated.


----------



## matticus (9 Dec 2020)

Dirk said:


> You've obviously never chucked a bike up the road at 100mph+.
> Leathers just keep all the mess in a nice package for the medics.


I guess I just imagined the film of crashes that riders have been ambulanced away from, very much alive, and often to race again.
Not having raced motorbikes on public roads, I'm bound to be wrong, silly me ...


----------



## Tripster (9 Dec 2020)

accountantpete said:


> Rugby League will have a lot to answer for then
> 
> 
> View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjLC_vqhfZ0



What a Wigan line up that was.... The Great Ellery in the centres, Edwards, Gregory to name a few.
Warrington had the biggest thug of all in Paul Cullen even worse when he moved into the pack. Good times


----------



## matticus (9 Dec 2020)

Tripster said:


> If you say you may get dementia the player still plays.


Well, maybe, maybe not.
Here's Steve Thompson from the original article:

“You see us lifting the World Cup and I can see me there jumping around. But I can’t remember it,” Thompson said. “I’d rather have just had a normal life. I’m just normal. Some people go for the big lights, whereas I never wanted that. Would I do it again? No, I wouldn’t. I can’t remember it. I’ve got no feelings about it.” 
...
Thompson would not want his own children to play the game “the way it is at the moment” and that he regrets ever taking it up himself.


----------



## Tripster (9 Dec 2020)

Fab Foodie said:


> This was the chap I referred to earlier that was on the TV News yesterday:
> 
> https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2...at-i-know-now-id-have-been-a-lot-more-careful
> 
> ...


But does it not say in your original post that without a brain dissection it’s not possible to definitively say the blows to the head caused there dementia ? I don’t doubt it probably contributed as they are young but even children have been found to suffer. It’s hard to believe that they would ‘have been more careful’ had they known...... Dan Carter on the attack, I have the opportunity to smash him and snuff out the All Blacks attack.... 80,000 screaming supporters....Cauldron atmosphere.... Nope, I will step aside as this may result in future brain issues if I get my hit wrong..... Off you go Dan, step right through


----------



## Rocky (9 Dec 2020)

accountantpete said:


> Rugby League will have a lot to answer for then
> 
> 
> View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjLC_vqhfZ0



I’ll raise you this.....


View: https://youtu.be/o58stoJJ5No


----------



## Tripster (9 Dec 2020)

matticus said:


> Well, maybe, maybe not.
> Here's Steve Thompson from the original article:
> 
> “You see us lifting the World Cup and I can see me there jumping around. But I can’t remember it,” Thompson said. “I’d rather have just had a normal life. I’m just normal. Some people go for the big lights, whereas I never wanted that. Would I do it again? No, I wouldn’t. I can’t remember it. I’ve got no feelings about it.”
> ...


And do you think that response is not expected as he is mounting a case against the RU ? Not going to publicly say the opposite, kinda undermines his case somewhat.


----------



## Tripster (9 Dec 2020)

Brompton Bruce said:


> I’ll raise you this.....
> 
> 
> View: https://youtu.be/o58stoJJ5No



Without watching it all I knew it was Kelvin bloody legend. Lee Crooks in that video, another Nutter. Dean Sampson too, played against him. Oh the good old days of RL


----------



## Tripster (9 Dec 2020)

View: https://youtu.be/BBamiZ6IQj0


----------



## Tripster (9 Dec 2020)

View: https://youtu.be/iXNZ24_VIxI


Maybe its right the shoulder charge went, maybe not but it did make for a great game


----------



## matticus (9 Dec 2020)

Tripster said:


> But does it not say in your original post that without a brain dissection it’s not possible to definitively say the blows to the head caused there dementia ?* I don’t doubt it probably contributed* as they are young but even children have been found to suffer


Well that's medicine for you - there usually are several causative factors. Look at diabetes - you can't say excess sugar is harmless just because people still get diabetes with healthy diets. Or how about non-smokers that get lung cancer??


----------



## matticus (9 Dec 2020)

Tripster said:


> It’s hard to believe that they would ‘have been more careful’ had they known...... Dan Carter on the attack, I have the opportunity to smash him and snuff out the All Blacks attack.... 80,000 screaming supporters....Cauldron atmosphere.... Nope, I will step aside as this may result in future brain issues if I get my hit wrong..... Off you go Dan, step right through


You're suggesting that no athletes look after themselves ... clearly bollox. Of course they overcome caution/fear more than someone with less at stake, but they're still human. They can change the habits of a lifetime if it means avoiding the SIn Bin! So I'm sure the threat of dementia at 45 would have some effect on behaviour.

EDIT: I've seen plenty of elite rugby players wimp out of tackles, even when injury was unlikely. It's human nature.


----------



## byegad (9 Dec 2020)

Tripster said:


> It was
> In all honest League is a poor relation to Union now. Union was dire when I was playing. Big fat beer bellies and kick and chase stuff. League was fast, entertaining and full of athletes. It failed to expand and grow and Union is a bigger spectacle, played worldwide and the players are now superb athletes. Hate to say it but I would stick with Union.( That’s Rugby Union not the European one)
> 
> Policing the a
> high tackles and attacks to the head are an obvious positive. I am not so sure about the shoulder charge. Unless it’s directed at the head then I feel it’s part of the game. A tackler can get his body position all wrong and his head positioned on the wrong side of the attackers body. His head collides with a hip, a knee, or is impacted into the ground as the attacker falls onto him. What happens then ? Penalise the tackler for crap execution ? Penalise the attacker for failing to preempt the crap body position and take evasive action and not land on his bonce ? It’s endless


I think the point made on BBC this morning was that 80% of the impacts take place in training. And much of those could be avoided.


----------



## Tripster (9 Dec 2020)

matticus said:


> Well that's medicine for you - there usually are several causative factors. Look at diabetes - you can't say excess sugar is harmless just because people still get diabetes with healthy diets. Or how about non-smokers that get lung cancer??



*You have nicely made my point for me. Several factors, hence the RFU not to blame*


matticus said:


> You're suggesting that no athletes look after themselves ... clearly bollox. Of course they overcome caution/fear more than someone with less at stake, but they're still human. They can change the habits of a lifetime if it means avoiding the SIn Bin! So I'm sure the threat of dementia at 45 would have some effect on behaviour.
> 
> EDIT: I've seen plenty of elite rugby players wimp out of tackles, even when injury was unlikely. It's human nature.


*I’m guessing you never played ? Your statement is true bollocks because a pro player puts his body on the line every game. What I am saying is I do not 100% believe he would have changed his tackles, runs at the line, ruck and maul had he known it was a possibility. The young don’t look at life after sport.... your last statement doesn’t warrant an answer, *

Young players of sport in my day and today use to call cuts, black eyes, broken nose a battle scare. A bit of sympathy with the ladies in the clubhouse afterwards. The bigger the cut the better the battle. Phrases like” pain is just weakness leaving the body“ all sorts of macho crap. If I had known I would end up with several internal stitches holding the layers of skin together and 10 external keeping my eyebrow from falling in my eye, would I have not made the tackle... “looked after myself and wimped out” as you say? Christ no! It was all I lived for at that age, playing on a Saturday with my best mates. Do I look back now and think I wish I could breath out of BOTH nostrils and my nose didn’t bend round corners ? No, because I loved my time. And I was amateur. Multiply that by 1000 and you get somewhere near to how a Pro must feel. So no, my statement is not bollocks because I actually played as a kid and nothing would get any of us off a field. The passion in places like Siddal, Wigan St Pats, Hull Dockers, Skirlaugh to name a few was ten fold.
The player would not have changed a thing about his career but now with the onset of dementia he states differently and blames the RFU
Earlier you said my opinions are based on personal experience... like a lot of what humans think and feel in life. I don’t doubt some of what you say is true but you dismiss all else as unproven. My claims are about the players attitude to playing and turning out of a weekend, not if dementia is solely caused by blows to his head, and I dispute he would have played differently based on how I and everyone I played with and against and all manner of interviews with pros state.

Edit: Owen Farrell changed his aggressive play now he knows all this head injury stuff ? Or the same passionate, aggressive borderline player ?


----------



## swee'pea99 (9 Dec 2020)

Fab Foodie said:


> if the RFU were aware and did nothing about it, then they may have liability


Surely this is the nub. If they knew and kept it from those with a need to know, that was irresponsible at best and arguably an actionable abdication of responsibilities which are rightfully theirs. Surely doing what you can to safeguard the health and wellbeing of the 'community' you claim to represent/lead is an inescapable duty for anyone who takes on the role. 

But you have to be realistic. They can't make the sport safe. Big people hurtling around at speed and crashing into each other is not a safe scenario. What they can and should do, it seems to me, is two things: first, be honest, open and as informative as they can about the risks, and second, continue incrementally adjusting the rules/guidance to refs. You'll never eliminate risk, but you should certainly be looking to minimise it as much as you can without changing the nature of the game. (Rugby wouldn't miss high tackles, but it would miss Gary Owens, tho' they come with risk attached.)

Once you've done that, you've done your job. The rest is down to the players.


----------



## Tripster (9 Dec 2020)

swee'pea99 said:


> Surely this is the nub. If they knew and kept it from those with a need to know, that was irresponsible at best and arguably an actionable abdication of responsibilities which are rightfully theirs. Surely doing what you can to safeguard the health and wellbeing of the 'community' you claim to represent/lead is an inescapable duty for anyone who takes on the role.
> 
> But you have to be realistic. They can't make the sport safe. Big people hurtling around at speed and crashing into each other is not a safe scenario. What they can and should do, it seems to me, is two things: first, be honest, open and as informative as they can about the risks, and second, continue incrementally adjusting the rules/guidance to refs. You'll never eliminate risk, but you should certainly be looking to minimise it as much as you can without changing the nature of the game. (Rugby wouldn't miss high tackles, but it would miss Gary Owens, tho' they come with risk attached.)
> 
> Once you've done that, you've done your job. The rest is down to the players.


I don’t think they hid anything from anyone and knocks to the head have long been known to cause damage. The real issue is taking a sports governing body to court for something you willingly did yourself. No one ever forces a player onto a field. They can walk away at anytime and pursue another career. Safe guarding players is one thing but as you say in your post, huge men & women hurtling towards each other at Olympic athlete speeds is always going to cause injury and be dangerous. weigh up the risk, is it worth it in your opinion, then play or not play


----------



## jowwy (9 Dec 2020)

matticus said:


> Well, maybe, maybe not.
> Here's Steve Thompson from the original article:
> 
> “You see us lifting the World Cup and I can see me there jumping around. But I can’t remember it,” Thompson said. “I’d rather have just had a normal life. I’m just normal. Some people go for the big lights, whereas I never wanted that. Would I do it again? No, I wouldn’t. I can’t remember it. I’ve got no feelings about it.”
> ...


so why did he come out of retirement to play again???

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/16018570

this says he hurt his neck, by hitting a scrum machine


----------



## Tripster (9 Dec 2020)

jowwy said:


> so why did he come out of retirement to play again???
> 
> https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/16018570
> 
> this says he hurt his neck, by hitting a scrum machine


This is the attitude of a professional player, the one that @matticus says is Bollocks sums up nicely what aI have been saying about how a pro sportsman thinks, acts and behaves when playing.....

Thompson returned an insurance payout of around £500,000 when he returned to action after his last neck injury, having received a second medical opinion that cleared him to play again.

Yep matticus, he really looked after his self and changed his habits of a lifetime.......the drive to play is far greater than anything but now he is regretting _*his*_ decisions and potential consequences but that’s not the RFU.


----------



## jowwy (9 Dec 2020)

Tripster said:


> This is the attitude of a professional player, the one that @matticus says is Bollocks sums up nicely what aI have been saying about how a pro sportsman thinks, acts and behaves when playing.....
> 
> Thompson returned an insurance payout of around £500,000 when he returned to action after his last neck injury, having received a second medical opinion that cleared him to play again.
> 
> Yep matticus, he really looked after his self and changed his habits of a lifetime.......the drive to play is far greater than anything but now he is regretting _*his*_ decisions and potential consequences but that’s not the RFU.


also both injuries were to his neck and not to the head


----------



## Tripster (9 Dec 2020)

jowwy said:


> also both injuries were to his neck and not to the head


The neck contains spinal column and a lot of nerves and delicate stuff to the brain. Who’s to say that some of the damage he did has not caused some of his dementia ? Who knows, but he sought to return despite one specialist saying not to. And as part of the forwards and scrummaging he knew his neck would be under immense strain. Not many people get half a million quid insurance payout for a work injury either so money was not his driving force to play. It was his desire and fighting spirit.


----------



## jowwy (9 Dec 2020)

Tripster said:


> The neck contains spinal column and a lot of nerves and delicate stuff to the brain. Who’s to say that some of the damage he did has not caused some of his dementia ? Who knows, but he sought to return despite one specialist saying not to. And as part of the forwards and scrummaging he knew his neck would be under immense strain. Not many people get half a million quid insurance payout for a work injury either so money was not his driving force to play. It was his desire and fighting spirit.


totally agree......but after suffering the 1st and then suffering a second neck injury he then says this " _*I have got to accept it this time. There is no way I can play. I can't do what I need to do to earn a living*_* "*


----------



## T4tomo (9 Dec 2020)

I think one thing that has changed since "back in the day" is professionalism. in the amateur game, people played on a saturday and might have had a training session or two midweek.

Pro players train, often at match intensity 5- 6 times a week. Plus the law changes have maid it more of a contact / confrontational sport, in the 80's you tackled around the knees / ankles, now people just run headlong into each other. 
Front rows used to bind up and come together slowly / now its all about "winning the hit"

i have some real sympathy with Steve Thompson et al.


----------



## Tripster (9 Dec 2020)

T4tomo said:


> I think one thing that has changed since "back in the day" is professionalism. in the amateur game, people played on a saturday and might have had a training session or two midweek.
> 
> Pro players train, often at match intensity 5- 6 times a week. Plus the law changes have maid it more of a contact / confrontational sport, in the 80's you tackled around the knees / ankles, now people just run headlong into each other.
> Front rows used to bind up and come together slowly / now its all about "winning the hit"
> ...


I have loads of sympathy. Pro’s do train hard but for maybe 4 hours of a day. Better than the life we have. And they have chefs on hand to prepare meals, physios, top doctors etc. It’s not a hardship. All I think is it’s a little unfair to start blaming the RFU after he repeatedly came back to play. 
I remember a pro super league player who coached us for a while. Had to be at training for 10am on a Monday, train a few hours, then a lunch. Maybe an hour or so in afternoon preparing for game and then that’s it. Spent rest of day playing online poker. Same on a Tuesday, day off Wednesday, repeat Thursday and Friday. Play Sunday. Adoration of thousands of fans and playing the sport you love......


----------



## Tripster (9 Dec 2020)

But then again my opinions are based on bollocks and lack of solid factual information


----------



## Fab Foodie (9 Dec 2020)

swee'pea99 said:


> Surely this is the nub. If they knew and kept it from those with a need to know, that was irresponsible at best and arguably an actionable abdication of responsibilities which are rightfully theirs. Surely doing what you can to safeguard the health and wellbeing of the 'community' you claim to represent/lead is an inescapable duty for anyone who takes on the role.
> 
> But you have to be realistic. They can't make the sport safe. Big people hurtling around at speed and crashing into each other is not a safe scenario. What they can and should do, it seems to me, is two things: first, be honest, open and as informative as they can about the risks, and second, continue incrementally adjusting the rules/guidance to refs. You'll never eliminate risk, but you should certainly be looking to minimise it as much as you can without changing the nature of the game. (Rugby wouldn't miss high tackles, but it would miss Gary Owens, tho' they come with risk attached.)
> 
> Once you've done that, you've done your job. The rest is down to the players.


Yep.

Reading some of those articles it seems that players continued to play when given medical advice following certain injuries and that being the case I can't see how they can blame the RFU for their woes. As highlighted by @Tripster, that as Thompson returned insurance money to continue playing I find it hard to see how he has a leg to stand on, but his lawyers must believe there is some case to argue. 

In some sports you have to have a license to compete, at least at a professional level, this could be applied to Rugby players and reviewed after serious injury or when medical advice suggest they quit - their licenses can then be revoked.


----------



## Fab Foodie (9 Dec 2020)

Tripster said:


> But then again my opinions are based on bollocks and lack of solid factual information


You'll go far on CC....


----------



## matticus (9 Dec 2020)

Tripster said:


> *All I think is* it’s a little unfair to start blaming the RFU after he repeatedly came back to play.


Blimey, if only that was all you'd _posted _here; in fact, why _did _you post a load of stuff that you didn't actually think?? Cat learned to type?


----------



## matticus (9 Dec 2020)

Fab Foodie said:


> In some sports you have to have a license to compete, at least at a professional level, this could be applied to Rugby players and reviewed after serious injury or when medical advice suggest they quit - their licenses can then be revoked.


I'm purely playing Devils Advocate here, but as they are PROFESSIONALs, if we considered work place safety legislation ... well it's pretty obvious that they couldn't play against medical advice, or shoot would hit fans at high speed and revs!


----------



## Rusty Nails (9 Dec 2020)

Rugby and boxing are at essence rough, vicious and dangerous sports, and, while this is not exactly civilised, it is what makes them so popular. These and many martial arts are unlike other sports in that a lot of it involves physical domination which can cause some damage

You either scrap them altogether, or accept that there are risks once you have mitigated the worst of them.

There obviously needs to be protection for kids, who generally do not have the ability to appreciate the dangers involved, but sporting bodies need to ensure that anyone over, say 18, who wants to take up such sports at local league or above level has the potential long-term risks fully explained to them and sign a waiver indemnifying their club/governing body against future claims. Insurance costs may rise as a result of this approach, but those who want to play would have to decide if they were prepared to pay.

On a minor point I think it was @Tripster who asked if Owen Farrell had reigned in his aggression because of his greater awareness of the effects of head injury. I think he has cut down on the illegal high tackles and shoulder charges because of his recent ban and the realisation refs had sussed him out.


----------



## Tripster (9 Dec 2020)

matticus said:


> Blimey, if only that was all you'd _posted _here; in fact, why _did _you post a load of stuff that you didn't actually think?? Cat learned to type?


Oh I don’t know, maybe to show how bollocks your post actually where


----------



## Tripster (9 Dec 2020)

matticus said:


> I'm purely playing* Devils Advocate* here, but as they are PROFESSIONALs, if we considered work place safety legislation ... well it's pretty obvious that they couldn't play against medical advice, or shoot would hit fans at high speed and revs!


We call it something else where I’m from


----------



## Tripster (9 Dec 2020)

Rusty Nails said:


> Rugby and boxing are at essence rough, vicious and dangerous sports, and, while this is not exactly civilised, it is what makes them so popular. These and many martial arts are unlike other sports in that a lot of it involves physical domination which can cause some damage
> 
> You either scrap them altogether, or accept that there are risks once you have mitigated the worst of them.
> 
> ...


Correct, he did not change because of new medical info from the RFU which is why I put it to that fella matticus. He seems to think players change behaviour to protect themselves. Owen still plays hard and aggressive but limits ‘his’ potential to cause someone a head injury but not his own and I doubt he ever will. A player like him never plays 100% fit and always leaves himself open to hard challenges. Gives as good as he gets though


----------



## Rusty Nails (9 Dec 2020)

Tripster said:


> Correct, he did not change because of new medical info from the RFU which is why I put it to that fella matticus. He seems to think players change behaviour to protect themselves. Owen still plays hard and aggressive but limits ‘his’ potential to cause someone a head injury but not his own and I doubt he ever will. A player like him never plays 100% fit and always leaves himself open to hard challenges. Gives as good as he gets though



Yep. He's a nasty little bugger. I wish he played for us.


----------



## Tripster (9 Dec 2020)

Rusty Nails said:


> Yep. He's a nasty little bugger. I wish he played for us.


I grew up watching his dad, same age, and he was a hell of a player and a competitor. Nasty sod too if needed to be.


----------



## Tripster (9 Dec 2020)

Dogtrousers said:


> The authorities clearly do have a responsibility, and they accept that to be the case - see the existence of head injury protocols and the changing of and policing of the high tackle and other rules. It's not simply a case of "caveat player".
> 
> Question is whether they have done/are they doing enough. I guess this case will test whether they have.
> 
> ...


For a minute I mistook him for John Hopoate The digit inserter 
I remember Hape playing for the Bradford Bulls


----------



## Tripster (9 Dec 2020)

Dogtrousers said:


> The authorities clearly do have a responsibility, and they accept that to be the case - see the existence of head injury protocols and the changing of and policing of the high tackle and other rules. It's not simply a case of "caveat player".
> 
> Question is whether they have done/are they doing enough. I guess this case will test whether they have.
> 
> ...


But again he freely admits players cheated the tests and made false claims to doctors in order to play so they must accept some responsibility. Again it comes back to the desire to play and mentality of a pro. Look at the Grand Final in RL the other week. Two big head collisions McCarthy Scarsbrook was out cold and been held up by team mates but somehow passed his head assessment. No way was he missing a Grand Final. James Graham looked a nothing knock but he failed his. I’m sure both know the dangers and risks in later life but they see the world differently. To come back years later and blame the club etc is not on really


----------



## Rusty Nails (9 Dec 2020)

Dogtrousers said:


> The authorities clearly do have a responsibility, and they accept that to be the case - see the existence of head injury protocols and the changing of and policing of the high tackle and other rules. It's not simply a case of "caveat player".
> 
> Question is whether they have done/are they doing enough. I guess this case will test whether they have.
> 
> ...



I would have thought the question is whether they did what could _reasonably_ be considered enough.


----------



## DRM (10 Dec 2020)

Perhaps the RFU may have to implement rule changes to negate the effects of head collisions, but I can’t see how anybody in either code can prevent accidental head collisions due to getting a tackle wrong, or banging into a knee or hip when being tackled/tackling the two incidents that Tripster mentions weren’t deliberate assaults but accidents, in contact sports it happens, the players know this , and still go out and play every week, the players are so much fitter now, the forwards in RL defy logic, big strong muscley athletes that run like a scalded cat when they get the ball and a sniff of a gap, the impacts are scary when spectating, particularly in the empty stadiums of late, you hear everything , where, in my opinion in RL it falls down is certain referees who seem to let some teams get away with high tackle after high tackle, then wonder why a punch up kicks off, the authorities should start with the ref’s to clamp down on illegal tackles consistently and fairly


----------



## matticus (10 Dec 2020)

Dogtrousers said:


> The authorities clearly do have a responsibility, and they accept that to be the case - see the existence of head injury protocols and the changing of and policing of the high tackle and other rules. It's not simply a case of "caveat player".
> <snip>
> https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/shontayne-hape-my-battle-with-concussion/CGBEXHZROCMNKPAD5BYKPBAL5Y/


Indeedy.

Interesting article, that . One section I think is relevant to the debate WE are having here:


> Growing up playing league in New Zealand, everyone got knocked out at some point. Everyone got concussed. I can't think of a single guy I played with who didn't. You just got up and played on. We were told to be Warriors. It's the nature of the sport. Harden up. That was the mentality. I was brought up with that.


Players of that generation are just not aware of the long-term effects of head impacts. Even reading about them now, their up-bringing will override their self-preservation; they do not simply "know what they are getting into".


----------



## Tripster (10 Dec 2020)

matticus said:


> Indeedy.
> 
> Interesting article, that . One section I think is relevant to the debate WE are having here:
> 
> Players of that generation are just not aware of the long-term effects of head impacts. Even reading about them now, their up-bringing will override their self-preservation; they do not simply "know what they are getting into".


Yes that’s so true, they really have no idea what they are getting themselves into


----------



## matticus (10 Dec 2020)

Tripster said:


> Yes that’s so true, they really have no idea what they are getting themselves into


What an appropriate emoji for discussing punch-drunk athletes!


----------



## Tripster (10 Dec 2020)

Punch drunk is boxers, not Rugby Players


----------



## matticus (10 Dec 2020)

Tripster said:


> Punch drunk is boxers, not Rugby Players


Have you really not learned anything about this subject since you were a rough tough northern schoolboy? You're really something else ...


----------



## Tripster (10 Dec 2020)

matticus said:


> Have you really not learned anything about this subject since you were a rough tough northern schoolboy? You're really something else ...


Well judging by the quantity of factual evidence I provided and you answering zero questions from then on, after you called me out saying my opinions where bollocks I would say I have learned a damn sight more than an arm chair supporter. oh just to help you out, only 10-20% of boxers ever get symptoms after they retire. If it was as big a problem from player ignorance as you say then nursing homes would be rammed to bursting point with ex players suffering....but it’s not. You really have no knowledge of this sport do you?


----------



## matticus (10 Dec 2020)

Tripster said:


> You really have no knowledge of this sport do you?


Would you listen to a doctor who had never played the game if he told you to stop/reduce your risky activity?

( I'm getting quite turned on by all the testosterone flying round this thread, from you manly rugger-bu99er types, especially when you put the rest of us in our place x :-) )


----------



## matticus (10 Dec 2020)

Tripster said:


> Well judging by the quantity of factual evidence I provided


what, like this you mean:

Tripster said:
Punch drunk is boxers, not Rugby Player

?


----------



## Tripster (10 Dec 2020)

matticus said:


> Would you listen to a doctor who had never played the game if he told you to stop/reduce your risky activity?
> 
> ( I'm getting quite turned on by all the testosterone flying round this thread, from you manly rugger-bu99er types, especially when you put the rest of us in our place x :-) )


Oh dear, you are making a fool of yourself. Please refer back to previous posts that show the player in question having A specialist consultation and been told his career is over. He then gets a second opinion and returns to the sport, risking serious injury if not paralysis...... did he listen to a doctor who had never played ? Nope but thankfully he did the third time when he had little choice. The point I keep making and keep factually proving is they think differently and no amount of medical evidence will change the majority of them and how they approach the game they love.
What has this got to do with tough rugger players ? Nothing, I assume you just had nothing left to say a bit like yesterday.

Like a boxer, take the 10 count...stay down... you are out ....


----------



## Tripster (10 Dec 2020)

matticus said:


> what, like this you mean:
> 
> Tripster said:
> Punch drunk is boxers, not Rugby Player
> ...


Punch drunk is a term _*derived *_from boxing and is used to explain the often disorientated behaviour of a person who has taken repeated blows suffering concussion.
Rugby players are speaking of knocks to the head and blows that they get during a game and have little knowledge of. The cumulative effect supposedly causing later life dementia. If the players where concussed, wobbly, stumbling _*punch drunk*_ they you would end up with 30 players laying out on a pitch ever game the amount of unforeseen knocks they take. 
Therefore _*Punch drunk *_ is not a term _*WIDELY*_ used to refer to a Rugby Player. More a concussed boxer.

Again, take the 10 count and stay down


----------



## matticus (10 Dec 2020)

You only had to google "Punch drunk dementia*" to be more informed. First hit:

" Neurodegeneration and degenerative disease. 
Chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE), formerly known as dementia pugilistica or 'punch drunk syndrome', is described as a progressive neurodegenerative disease in people with a history of repetitive mild traumatic brain injury
"

You see how easily "armchair supporters" can inform themselves? Gosh, this is fun, isn't it, no doubt the world is following this erudite discussion ...

*if you just google _punch drunk_ you get a theatre company!


----------



## Tripster (10 Dec 2020)

You googled punch drunk dementia.....very leading
I gave you an explanation of where the term Punch Drunk originates from seen as you think the term punch drunk is relative to Rugby Players... but then again you have a very stereotypical view of a rugby player it seems from your last few posts. Do you have a stereotypical view of Northern folk to ? Unable to read, write, typical racist and Brexit voter ?
Just so you don’t have to climb out of your armchair and zip up your pants to google, League is a traditionally working class Northern sport confined to the M62 corridor mostly. Whereas Union is the Rugger boys, from University and the upper echelons of society.


----------



## matticus (10 Dec 2020)

Tripster said:


> Again, take the 10 count and stay down


p.s. I realise I might not have made this clear; I don't find this sort of thing very persuasive. Have you found it successful in other discussions?
I'm increasingly coming back to my first response to you:



matticus said:


> _Tripster said:
> Is that not the point of a discussion ? You may find you enlighten some and that you are too enlightened by others_
> 
> Ideally - yes! But I've wasted enough of my life on internet discussion; much of it could have been avoided if I'd learned some lessons earlier :P


----------



## Tripster (10 Dec 2020)

matticus said:


> p.s. I realise I might not have made this clear; I don't find this sort of thing very persuasive. Have you found it successful in other discussions?
> I'm increasingly coming back to my first response to you:


But you are failing to or are too arrogant to be enlightened by others and would rather play devils advocate
Enjoy the armchair............


----------



## Dayvo (10 Dec 2020)

matticus said:


> As a player (soft or otherwise!), where would you say most of the serious impacts come from? On telly we only notice the nasty clash-of-heads stuff i.e. where a player ends up on the floor or with a cut, resulting in slo-mo replays.
> Are these the main impact?
> Are they being reduced by the stricter laws on tackles-above-the-shoulders?
> Is the scrum significant?


When I was playing, mostly as tight-head prop, and up to 1995, scrums, for the two front rows, was almost always a clash of heads when engaging with the opposition. Fists occasionally would arrive from the opposing 2nd row.
In open play, high tackles were generally rare, rucks weren’t pleasant if you were on the ground with 10 bodies on top of you and a player from the other team was aiming a punch or kick at you - it did happen quite a lot.
The fitness, size, speed and power of today’s professional players makes the game a lot more potentially damaging, and there seems to be far more clashing of heads than before.

Serious/fatal injuries (neck, head and back) mainly occured when scrums collapsed. Up to a few years ago the referer directed the forming of the scrum with the tiresome ‘crouch, touch, pause, engage', 'crouch and hold, engage’ mantra. Today it’s a ‘simple’ ‘crouch, bind, set.’

At a scrum today, the scrum half feeds the ball (à la rugby league) almost directly to his 2nd row, by-passing his hooker’s foot completely, making it, IMO, a non contest and a waste of time and effort.


----------



## Dayvo (10 Dec 2020)

Brompton Bruce said:


> I’ll raise you this.....
> 
> 
> View: https://youtu.be/o58stoJJ5No



There’s plenty of ‘good’ punch-ups, but this the first one I saw (TV).
Willie John McBride - legend!

View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_SFCnzf1-5U


----------



## Fab Foodie (10 Dec 2020)

Tripster said:


> But again he freely admits players cheated the tests and made false claims to doctors in order to play so they must accept some responsibility. Again it comes back to the desire to play and mentality of a pro. Look at the Grand Final in RL the other week. Two big head collisions McCarthy Scarsbrook was out cold and been held up by team mates but somehow passed his head assessment. No way was he missing a Grand Final. James Graham looked a nothing knock but he failed his. I’m sure both know the dangers and risks in later life but they see the world differently. To come back years later and blame the club etc is not on really


And this is probably one area where player and club are going to have to have a big change of attitude....


----------



## matticus (10 Dec 2020)

Dayvo said:


> The fitness, size, speed and power of today’s professional players makes the game a lot more potentially damaging, and there seems to be far more clashing of heads than before.


Thanks. It seems there has been some progress in getting objective data on impacts:
https://www.wired.co.uk/article/rugby-concussion-opro-mouthguard


----------



## Tripster (10 Dec 2020)

Objective data they will use to improve training collisions and reduce the 20% of occurrences but it cannot tell immediately if an impact has resulted in some form of damage or concussion. That leaves someone on the touch lines trying to interpret a load of data in a split second and heat of a game. It’s useful after the event to analyse and maybe treat players who potentially have had a hit. For example a mandatory rest period and no game or training activity but it’s still not going to stop collisions. That can only be done by radically overhauling the game and you are left with touch/tag rugby that under 5’s play.


----------



## DRM (10 Dec 2020)

Perhaps a step forward would be to have a free interchange when a player comes off for a head injury assessment, that would remove the pressure to either refuse to go off, or demand to go back on to the pitch, when the player really shouldn’t be back on.


----------



## Chromatic (10 Dec 2020)

DRM said:


> Perhaps a step forward would be to have a free interchange when a player comes off for a head injury assessment, that would remove the pressure to either refuse to go off, or demand to go back on to the pitch, when the player really shouldn’t be back on.



They already do.


----------



## Rusty Nails (10 Dec 2020)

DRM said:


> Perhaps a step forward would be to have a free interchange when a player comes off for a head injury assessment, that would remove the pressure to either refuse to go off, or demand to go back on to the pitch, when the player really shouldn’t be back on.



What's a free interchange? is that the same as a replacement? You can have a replacement for a HIA currently.

Edit: @Chromatic beat me to it.


----------



## DRM (10 Dec 2020)

Chromatic said:


> They already do.


 I take it that’s in RU, in RL I’m sure it’s 12 from 4 named substitutes


----------



## Rusty Nails (10 Dec 2020)

DRM said:


> I take it that’s in RU, in RL I’m sure it’s 12 from 4 named substitutes



I see what you mean now. I haven't watched any RL for a few years.


----------



## Chromatic (10 Dec 2020)

DRM said:


> I take it that’s in RU, in RL I’m sure it’s 12 from 4 named substitutes



Yes, union. We don't have interchanges like as in league but a player with a head injury that goes off for assessment will be replaced, either temporarily for the duration of the assessment, which if he passes he can come back on and the replacement goes off, or permanently if he fails .


----------



## Tripster (11 Dec 2020)

I think RL is 12 interchanges and HIA doesn’t count towards them. Blood bins not sure, it used to be they did not count unless the player did not return to replace the blood bin substitute but not sure now. I don’t follow it as much


----------



## matticus (11 Dec 2020)

Tripster said:


> but it’s still *not going to stop collisions*. That can only be done by radically overhauling the game and you are left with touch/tag rugby that under 5’s play


Do you think people are hoping to achieve this? You seem rather obsessed with the idea.


----------



## Tripster (11 Dec 2020)

matticus said:


> Do you think people are hoping to achieve this? You seem rather obsessed with the idea.


Obsessed ? It’s a central part of the discussion and the major cause of the problem.


----------



## matticus (11 Dec 2020)

STOPPING collisions? No, don't think that's a major theme.
Reducing, or mitigating the resultant brain damage; seems like the main thrust to me.


----------



## Fab Foodie (5 Jan 2021)

This seems to be spreading.
More talk of footie players and ball-heading.
This from Rugby League

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2...retires-at-27-due-to-concussions-rugby-league

Not an issue that's going-away fast....


----------



## matticus (5 Jan 2021)

I just heard that 6 Nations is still on, starting February.  Bound to stir this up again.


----------



## Dayvo (5 Jan 2021)

Fab Foodie said:


> This seems to be spreading.
> More talk of footie players and ball-heading.
> This from Rugby League
> 
> ...


When I played colt/club rugby mid ‘70s to early ‘90s, if anyone was concussed, they’d have to sit out any training and matches for six weeks.

Seems like this fella was very ill-advised to play again two weeks after his first concussion.


----------



## Fab Foodie (5 Jan 2021)

Dayvo said:


> When I played colt/club rugby mid ‘70s to early ‘90s, if anyone was concussed, they’d have to sit out any training and matches for six weeks.
> 
> Seems like this fella was very ill-advised to play again two weeks after his first concussion.


It seems to have been the way. Plus it's manly and ruffty-tuffty to get back on and play again....


----------



## DRM (5 Jan 2021)

Fab Foodie said:


> This seems to be spreading.
> More talk of footie players and ball-heading.
> This from Rugby League
> 
> ...


Absolutely gutted about this, though it’s no surprise, rumours were doing the rounds on Leeds Rhinos fan forum that Stevie Ward would be retiring before Xmas, and that the effects of concussion weren’t going away, he’s one talented player whose career has been blighted by injury.


----------



## Tripster (5 Jan 2021)

DRM said:


> Absolutely gutted about this, though it’s no surprise, rumours were doing the rounds on Leeds Rhinos fan forum that Stevie Ward would be retiring before Xmas, and that the effects of concussion weren’t going away, he’s one talented player whose career has been blighted by injury.


Leeds have had some terrible luck of late on and off the pitch. I welled up at Rob Burrow tribute by Kev Sinfield and such a sad sight seeing him have to turn away from Rob to avoid crying again after his amazing 7 in 7 days. Had some talented players have Leeds and miss the Morley days


----------



## DRM (5 Jan 2021)

Dayvo said:


> When I played colt/club rugby mid ‘70s to early ‘90s, if anyone was concussed, they’d have to sit out any training and matches for six weeks.
> 
> Seems like this fella was very ill-advised to play again two weeks after his first concussion.


It’s not just that, he’s struggled with various injuries through the last few years, and was having mental health problems by not being able to play, and having had a bad run of injuries, all the while the team were struggling after the retirement of the previous “golden generation” of players who were sorely missed, he just wanted to get out there and do his bit, sadly the 2 concussions have had an appalling effect on him


----------



## Notafettler (5 Jan 2021)

Played till I was 58 but had to stop due to knee injury. Mostly hooker but i was brain dead before I started, so I won't be able to join the claim. Pitty always fancied a fat bike with Rohloff and front and rear racks.


----------



## Notafettler (5 Jan 2021)

I assume they are disc brakes only?


----------



## Notafettler (5 Jan 2021)

In British racing green


----------



## Notafettler (5 Jan 2021)

The bike not the disc brakes


----------



## Notafettler (5 Jan 2021)

Tripster said:


> I’m sure both know the dangers and risks in later life but they see the world differently


Are you sure they knew the risks? I think its only just coming to light recently. As in football. Although in the latter case it maybe due the much heavier leather football?


----------



## Tripster (5 Jan 2021)

Notafettler said:


> Are you sure they knew the risks? I think its only just coming to light recently. As in football. Although in the latter case it maybe due the much heavier leather football?


I think much debated up thread. Yes to some extent I believe they do but play knowing risks.


----------



## Notafettler (5 Jan 2021)

Tripster said:


> Whereas Union is the Rugger boys, from University and the upper echelons of society.


I played till I was 58, I never came across a team that was not predominantly working class.


----------



## DRM (6 Jan 2021)

Notafettler said:


> I played till I was 58, I never came across a team that was not predominantly working class.


It's history innit, we all know that teams in both codes are made of predominantly working class people, but can have a mix of backgrounds in them, however pre 1895 the powers that be felt that both Rugby & Soccer, were the preserve of the landed gentry, who once the working man started playing couldn't cope with their basic fitness and strength, so the son of Lord whoever couldn't match the local farmers son for example who was used to wrestling with livestock, or the collier used to hard graft, so by not paying them for missing Saturday's pay was a way to prevent them playing, which is why the Northern Union was set up, which became Rugby League, the RFU have a long history of doing the dirty on RL, even as recently as the 70's, these things don't become quickly forgotten.
And I did enjoy playing at school, and have long been a supporter of Leeds Rhinos, but I was too rubbish at it to consider playing for a local side.


----------



## DRM (6 Jan 2021)

Tripster said:


> Leeds have had some terrible luck of late on and off the pitch. I welled up at Rob Burrow tribute by Kev Sinfield and such a sad sight seeing him have to turn away from Rob to avoid crying again after his amazing 7 in 7 days. Had some talented players have Leeds and miss the Morley days


Yes it's been quite the curates egg over the last few seasons, hopefully this coming season will be better, perhaps there is something in the old wives tale about a gypsies curse on Headingley!


----------



## Tripster (6 Jan 2021)

Notafettler said:


> I played till I was 58, I never came across a team that was not predominantly working class.


Well done for still playing at 58. I assume you are ex pro ? Because unless you are elite level of the past or just phenomenal then I can’t see a place on the team sheet been given to a 58 year old against the current crop of young amateur players. Or was it Veteran games ? Regarding the typical comment - I played league from the age of 7 to 34, I played at the highest amateur level and gained County honours amongst others. I was coached, at the time, by Super League Players in their prime at St Helens. I have the upmost respect for anyone who sets foot on a field. Union in my day was played in Universities and Bradford Grammar type schools. League was working class. Now not at all, but then it was.


----------



## Tripster (6 Jan 2021)

DRM said:


> Yes it's been quite the curates egg over the last few seasons, hopefully this coming season will be better, perhaps there is something in the old wives tale about a gypsies curse on Headingley!



I haven’t been to the new Headingley since moving to the wrong side (Lancashire). I was a Bradford lad and fan. As Bradford declined and Leeds excelled under the Peacocks, burrows, McGuire, Sinfield and co era it was a pleasure to watch. I was the same age as Morley so grew up (and old) following his career and still my favourite of all players.
Must admit though I feel the game has lost a lot from a spectators viewpoint and overshadowed by Union. The set up, tv time, international game Structure are so much better than League but then it’s still predominantly played in the M62 corridor, which was the working class pit mining areas, but as fella above says ‘ not working class’

Edit: Do you remember the little hooker for Leeds Mick Shaw ? When he returned to Siddal I played against him and when he ran at the line, each and everytime a step and burst of acceleration before breaking through or offloading for a try. The speed of thought, hands and strength where on another level to amateurs. 60 points past us that day and most from him. To this day his pace astounded me. Another sad loss.


----------



## Notafettler (6 Jan 2021)

Tripster said:


> Well done for still playing at 58. I assume you are ex pro ? Because unless you are elite level of the past or just phenomenal then I can’t see a place on the team sheet been given to a 58 year old against the current crop of young amateur players. Or was it Veteran games ? Regarding the typical comment - I played league from the age of 7 to 34, I played at the highest amateur level and gained County honours amongst others. I was coached, at the time, by Super League Players in their prime at St Helens. I have the upmost respect for anyone who sets foot on a field. Union in my day was played in Universities and Bradford Grammer type schools. League was working class. Now not at all, but then it was.


Why would you assume I was ex pro. Rugby Union did not turn professional till 1995.
You have a lack of knowledge of the lower leagues of rugby Union which I played in. The last team I played for was Skegness 2nds. Because they didn't have a third team. I have never played for a vets team. When I get a new knee I will consider playing again. At the very least on tours.


----------



## Tripster (6 Jan 2021)

Notafettler said:


> Why would you assume I was ex pro. Rugby Union did not turn professional till 1995.
> You have a lack of knowledge of the lower leagues of rugby Union which I played in. The last team I played for was Skegness 2nds. Because they didn't have a third team. I have never played for a vets team. When I get a new knee I will consider playing again. At the very least on tours.


Hmmm, post edited by a Mod so guessing it was not the nicest of responses. I ask if you where ex pro for the reasons I gave which is that no decent team would have a need to pick someone nearing 60 to play especially if they expected to compete at a very good level against very good opposition. I said that rather than say you must be competing in poor leagues. I have a good knowledge of the leagues when I played as we shared a ground with a Union team. At _*that time and era*_ the differences where stark from the cars they drove to the jobs they had and the money the club had compared to our rusty old fiestas, builders, joiners for jobs or unemployed. Did they play League at Oxford or Cambridge ? Same as they didn’t have an annual boat race in Hanson Upper school, Bradford

Anyway this thread is about the injuries in the sport and the later life problems it may cause. It’s not a Microscope analysis of my opinion of League Vs Union of many years gone by. Start another thread if you wish and then people can carry on with this if they wish.


----------



## matticus (6 Jan 2021)

It's hard to believe there are so many punch-ups on a Rugby pitch. The players are such a peaceful bunch in normal life!


----------



## Notafettler (6 Jan 2021)

Tripster said:


> Hmmm, post edited by a Mod so guessing it was not the nicest of responses. I ask if you where ex pro for the reasons I gave which is that no decent team would have a need to pick someone nearing 60 to play especially if they expected to compete at a very good level against very good opposition. I said that rather than say you must be competing in poor leagues. I have a good knowledge of the leagues when I played as we shared a ground with a Union team. At _*that time and era*_ the differences where stark from the cars they drove to the jobs they had and the money the club had compared to our rusty old fiestas, builders, joiners for jobs or unemployed. Did they play League at Oxford or Cambridge ? Same as they didn’t have an annual boat race in Hanson Upper school, Bradford
> 
> Anyway this thread is about the injuries in the sport and the later life problems it may cause. It’s not a Microscope analysis of my opinion of League Vs Union of many years gone by. Start another thread if you wish and then people can carry on with this if they wish.


Not edited. You quoted me. Your knowledge of Union is based on one club....so no knowledge. Its also based on what cars people drove. No doubt you only saw the expensive ones and ignored the cheap one. You saw what you wanted to see.
"Did they play League at Oxford or Cambridge" try not bring envy into it.


----------



## Tripster (6 Jan 2021)

Notafettler said:


> Not edited. You quoted me. Your knowledge of Union is based on one club....so no knowledge. Its also based on what cars people drove. No doubt you only saw the expensive ones and ignored the cheap one. You saw what you wanted to see.
> "Did they play League at Oxford or Cambridge" try not bring envy into it.


Sorry you are wrong again. My knowledge is based on far more, not one club. Nor cars, just a comment. Stick to the thread title. And try not to assume you know my knowledge base. Or better still hit the ignore button. It works well for many on here No envy here. I hated school and education for many reasons and have no desire to be of University stock.

I have fallen into arguments and debates on here and they are pointless and just continue before becoming personal. Up thread I have complimented the Union game and even said how much better a spectacle and professional it is now. Your view of the games roots is your view and mine is mine but it detracts not from two great sports. Move on and drop this silly argument


----------



## Notafettler (6 Jan 2021)

matticus said:


> It's hard to believe there are so many punch-ups on a Rugby pitch. The players are such a peaceful bunch in normal life!


Not anymore. Immediate red card. Same with high tackles. I don't think raking is allowed anymore.


----------



## DRM (7 Jan 2021)

Notafettler said:


> Not edited. You quoted me. Your knowledge of Union is based on one club....so no knowledge. Its also based on what cars people drove. No doubt you only saw the expensive ones and ignored the cheap one. You saw what you wanted to see.
> "Did they play League at Oxford or Cambridge" try not bring envy into it.


I think you'll find that at elite level in the amateur days of RU, they didn't get paid, but a directorship somewhere would be a nice little earner, as opposed to RL's winning & losing pay scale pre super league.
And Tripster is right re Schools Rugby, September 1977, first PE lesson it was Rugby, when the kids asked to play RL rules we were told "this is an ex grammar school, we don't play that here", the PE teacher threw the ball at us and told us to to "sort yourselves out if your playing that!" and promptly went back inside, no showing how to tackle, form a scrum, anything shocking attitude, yet the week after the other, younger PE teacher was horrified when he found out what had gone on, and showed us what to do properly every week, he played RU for the local club, yet had the sense to be glad that we were outside, exercising , and couldn't careless what version of the game was being played with non of the stupid old prejudices from way back when.


----------



## DRM (7 Jan 2021)

Tripster said:


> I haven’t been to the new Headingley since moving to the wrong side (Lancashire). I was a Bradford lad and fan. As Bradford declined and Leeds excelled under the Peacocks, burrows, McGuire, Sinfield and co era it was a pleasure to watch. I was the same age as Morley so grew up (and old) following his career and still my favourite of all players.
> Must admit though I feel the game has lost a lot from a spectators viewpoint and overshadowed by Union. The set up, tv time, international game Structure are so much better than League but then it’s still predominantly played in the M62 corridor, which was the working class pit mining areas, but as fella above says ‘ not working class’
> 
> Edit: Do you remember the little hooker for Leeds Mick Shaw ? When he returned to Siddal I played against him and when he ran at the line, each and everytime a step and burst of acceleration before breaking through or offloading for a try. The speed of thought, hands and strength where on another level to amateurs. 60 points past us that day and most from him. To this day his pace astounded me. Another sad loss.


Yes I remember Mick, another example of why it's right to speak up if you aren't happy with life, indeed a sad loss.


----------

