[Closed] No winners in this story

Read that last night, I also thought of the two with MND . The long term repeated blows to the head cannot be good. The players of the modern game are a different shape - enormous and incredibly fit, but the skull and brain remains the same. The impact is frightening sometimes.

is it the fault of the RFU

Somewhat stating the obvious but they will aim to prove negligence and if they succeed the RFU will be at fault, The risk of brain injury from contact sports (Chronic Traumatic Encepalopathy) has been well established over the past decade or longer - the NFL (for example) has paid out millions and changed a lot of the rules of the game to reduce risk. I don't know what the RFU has done in this area but it would have to cover everything from training in any affiliated club right through to top level competition and any sport where there is a significant risk of head trauma should be doing the same.

Will depend when the evidence about head injuries became known? Once it's known, then ignoring it becomes negligence, but not sure where common sense comes in to that.

The game and the players have changed massively since turning pro - sadly I think that may mean the game has to be fundamentally changed on the pitch.

Not sure bankrupting the RFU via claims is the best solution, but these guys need all the support they can get and it's not going to be cheap.

No winners, indeed.

In terms of these cases the RFU might be able to say evidence was not readily available, however its been clear for at least 10years or more that repetitive concussions have an impact on brain injuries.

Dave Mirra being a case in point for biking.

The fact that the NFL went through similar cases in the past and ended up paying out suggests that the evidence has been around for more than long enough for the sporting bodies to respond to the issue.

Looks like the NFL started denying the issue in the mid nineties, finally settling in 2013.

If the RFU have done little or nothing in this time to prevent such issues I'd they have been negilgent, however I'm not close enough to the sport to know if training methods have changed in the last 15years or so. The game doesn't appear to have changed to minimise these head injuries beyond a concussion rule, which I'd see as the absolute minimum that a governing body should be doing.

Dark times ahead for the sport to sort this and help the players past and present to deal with this.

Kind of glad I never filled out now as I loved playing rugby as a kid.

I remember reading this article almost a decade ago and being pretty horrified and then thinking that rugby's time was up in its current form. It's a good piece.

The NFL star and the brain injuries that destroyed him

So the NFL have paid a billion dollars to compensate the players affected. Has the RFU or World Rugby got that amount? Surely they would have seen the potential problem a decade ago and made provision.

I used to love watching rugby, but, to be totally honest, seeing Sexton or George North getting concussed for the 10th time or whatever is pretty sickening. I don't have any answers in how you change a full contact game to make it safe. But in a care home with dementia at 50? My god.

There was a BBC program about this a few years back where they interviewed Bill Beaumont about the problem and to say he was evasive and disingenuous is an understatement.

Read that last night, I also thought of the two with MND . The long term repeated blows to the head cannot be good.

My dad played rugby for 30+ years, a lot of that time at a fairly high level. He was diagnosed with MND 2 years ago, and sadly passed away on Monday this week.

He played in a time when the long term damage wasn’t known I am sure, but as soon as it was known, something needed to change.

Jesus @nealglover, that's awful :(.

What's notable about the NFL is that although it *has* paid out billions, it still functions as a sport - and the hits are as hard as ever. Are there implications there for the RFU - if they are transparent about the (fairly obvious?) risks, does that reduce their future liability to players who start after that admission?

So sorry to hear that @nealglover

I came to Rugby late so a spectator only. I have been watching Sale for the last 10 yrs and I also dont know if the game has a long term future in its current format. It is great to watch but modern players have incredible speed and are almost all huge, something has to change for their long term safety.

What’s notable about the NFL is that although it *has* paid out billions, it still functions as a sport – and the hits are as hard as ever

I'd disagree re the hits - the rules in place to penalise contact to the head and the yardage and down penalties that follow are serious enough that it's also had a generally moderating effect on even strictly body to body contact. It's undoubtedly a good thing but if you watch a game from 10 years ago vs a game now the differences are clear. As you say though, they've found a way to carry on functioning as a sport. There's far less money in Rugby Union but hopefully there's going to be commensurately less damage to compensate for in case of any liability. For example "Spearing" has never been a common type of tackle the way it was in the NFL until fairly recently, and head-on contact between 2 lines of forwards isn't the way each play starts

Interesting context johnners. I only watch rarely, so coming to it as a Brit it still seems like big hits, helmet on helmet contact and so on - and often it's only the most egregious hits or sackings that get the replays. I hadn't realised that it actually cleaned up; it's good news, although you still wonder about the incremental effect of repeated smaller impacts of course.

I am torn on this.

I feel sorry for the people affected by this but unless the RFU held a gun to players heads and forced them to take hits, I cant see how they can be responsible for something that wasn't known at the time.

If you choose to play rugby, you turn up voluntarily and play as physically as you like. There is nothing stopping you walking away if you don't like it.

I'd like to think the physical and mental positives outweigh the negatives in being active and being involved in team sport.

If you choose to play rugby, you turn up voluntarily and play as physically as you like. There is nothing stopping you walking away if you don’t like it.

This was also my Dad’s opinion, he personally wouldn’t have done anything differently I don’t think.

There is some responsibility to change the game/rules to avoid the biggest risks though (once they are known about)

I was listening to this on R4 today and it’s really quite heartbreaking some of the stories.
From what I hear the game has changed a lot and one point was made that passing is so good that tackling has started to become higher up the body which can lead to more head injuries, more so the the tackler rather than the takleee (sp?) which I found interesting.
Also the attitudes about injury have changed due to rule changes from “be tough, hit hard, give 100%” where it was down to the player to take themselves out if they had a head injury to a point where if there is an injury that player is taken out of the game immediately and is tested for 12 symptoms which they have to pass before going back in, if they don’t pass then they are taken out of the game permanently and are tested days later to check recovery etc.
I don’t watch rugby but found the discussion very interesting. The issue will be that what action was taken by the authorities after it was well known that head injuries were a long term issue? If they just didn’t bother dealing with it or had a lax attitude to it they deserve to be taken to task about it.

Unfortunately if it means the game has to change completely to stop people being in care homes at 50yo then so be it. It’s happened in a lot of sports - my favourite F1 has changed so much in the last 2 or 3 decades to try and get drivers home alive.

Yes but making F1 safer and keeping it F1 was relatively easy once you got your head around the engineering challenges.

I'm not sure how you can make rugby safer whilst keeping it rugby? Other than pissing in the wind in terms of return to play protocols I don't see what you could do other than making all rugby "touch" rugby.

I'm sure NFL didn't cough up nearly a billion USD itself - its insurers did. The same would apply to the RFU, SRFU etc. As above, there has been plenty of evidence of this risk over at least a decade and the rugby organisations that set the rules need to show that they have had appropriate regard to that risk in the way they manage the game.

Unfortunately if it means the game has to change completely to stop people being in care homes at 50yo then so be it.

100% this.

I’m not sure how you can make rugby safer whilst keeping it rugby? Other than pissing in the wind in terms of return to play protocols I don’t see what you could do other than making all rugby “touch” rugby.

Maybe it has to go that way. I don’t think it’s worth keeping the game as it is if it means every year a few players put a gun to their head or walk in front of a train to get away from what the sport has done to them.
You can’t simply keep doing the same thing knowing the risks to athletes health is as bad as it is.
If it was any other workplace then the HSE would have changed the rules/guidance a long time ago to reduce the risk or eliminate it entirely.

I'd expect if there was some 'disclosure' we'd find some reports gathering dust in some metaphorical filing cabinets at RFU HQ, but expect they were too busy focused on making money to think about consequences.

Yes but making F1 safer and keeping it F1 was relatively easy once you got your head around the engineering challenges.

I start by saying that I think modern F1 is great, and amazingly safe given the risks. Ask Grosjean.

But there are many who have stopped watching in disgust - they claim they need to danger and massive engines to make it the sport they want!

Even some drivers were against the Halo - including ironically Grosjean. Ask him what hi thinks now!

As for how to ‘fix’ rugby, it’s a tough one. I played for years, and it’s hard to think how you can limit the risk. Rule changes help, but heads will be bumped.

NFL is a rather different sport, they have changed a great deal but mostly to outlaw the most blatant thuggery!

If you’re interest go watch ‘Kickoffs are stupid and bad’ on YouTube (partly because Jon Bois is a legend, and Chart Party is a great YouTube channel) because their take in banning kickoffs is a interesting

They don’t really affect the game, but have high impact collisions which are an inherent part of the play, but not really crucial. They cause a disproportionate number of injuries. And there are interesting alternatives that could really help the game.

Really worth a watch. Especially if you’re a stats nerd. Like I am.

🤓

Each play in the NFL causes a concussion on average 1 out of 241 times

There’s on average ~130-140 plays per game, 16 games in a regular season weekend.

My maths says ~9 concussions a week.

Indeed no winners

My mum and family still blame league for the death of my dad through a brain tumour/anuyirism due to the amount of concussions he had.

I'm not wholly convinced but worked with chaos who have short term memory loss and epilepsy and a common history playing league.

I don't know enough about it to argue but I'm sure theres a few instances where it's the catalyst