By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
Former Wales rugby captain, Ryan Jones, is part of a group of players diagnosed with early-onset dementia and other irreversible neurological impairments looking to sue the sport's governing bodies. A legal case is being issued by Rylands Law against World Rugby, the Rugby Football Union and the Welsh Rugby Union.
This post has been edited by an administrator
A great believer in taking anything you like to wherever you want to.
Is this the end for Rugby ? on 20:41 - Jul 25 by Togg
Our of curiosity. How will boxing fare?
I would think that all contact sports will be ultimately banned in the not to distant future, no organisation of any sport will be able to sustain the probability of paying out massive amounts of compensation money.
The legal profession, especially the ambulance chasers will be rubbing their hands.
Is this the end for Rugby ? on 21:19 - Jul 25 by Dr_Winston
The differences are that:
A - In boxing, as in all combat sports, competitors know from the off that there's a chance of getting knocked unconscious. Indeed, that is the point of it. Hard to blame a Governing body in that instance.
B - Once a boxer is knocked down for ten seconds it's over. They're not encouraged to carry on fighting, which wasn't the case until very recently in Rugby.
the worst thing that happened to boxing were the gloves, when it was bare knuckled fighting, they wouldn't hit the face as they'd break their hands
Is this the end for Rugby ? on 20:48 - Jul 25 by onehunglow
But there are ancillary matters with boxing not least the damage caused and whether a fight is stopped in time.
True but the trainer can also pull their fighter out. The point of boxing is to inflict damage, the participants consent to this. Different to contact sports where that’s not the aim.
Again, I may be wrong, not an expert in this area
0
Is this the end for Rugby ? on 21:34 - Jul 25 with 1489 views
Is this the end for Rugby ? on 20:46 - Jul 25 by Sirjohnalot
Situation could be different there as the point is to hit the person as hard as possible, therefore contributory negligence would be huge (again I may be completely wrong )
Volenti non fit injuria ...surely
0
Is this the end for Rugby ? on 05:51 - Jul 26 with 1410 views
So essentially these players have to prove that World Rugby/WRU were aware of evidence connecting the game with the ailments that they are now suffering, but either dismissed it or were negligent in their actions to prevent it.
I'm not sure how they do that, but they are confident.
Is this the end for Rugby ? on 18:22 - Jul 26 by Jack_Kass
So essentially these players have to prove that World Rugby/WRU were aware of evidence connecting the game with the ailments that they are now suffering, but either dismissed it or were negligent in their actions to prevent it.
I'm not sure how they do that, but they are confident.
[Post edited 26 Jul 2022 18:22]
One of the cases they tell you about (at least when I did it many years ago) was someone who sued a cricket club as someone hit a six and it hit their car when they were driving causing a crash. Test came down to them looking at how many sixes had cleared the ground onto the road over the years and whether it was reasonably foreseeable or just a mammoth strike. I would imagine the risk here is obvious, it may come down to the concussion protocols at the time the player was playing and what was known then.
0
Is this the end for Rugby ? on 21:04 - Jul 26 with 1257 views
Is this the end for Rugby ? on 18:43 - Jul 26 by Sirjohnalot
One of the cases they tell you about (at least when I did it many years ago) was someone who sued a cricket club as someone hit a six and it hit their car when they were driving causing a crash. Test came down to them looking at how many sixes had cleared the ground onto the road over the years and whether it was reasonably foreseeable or just a mammoth strike. I would imagine the risk here is obvious, it may come down to the concussion protocols at the time the player was playing and what was known then.
I'm no expert but have seen a couple of cases that are sort of similar. One of the tests for the employer was whether or not they had disclosed the information the employer had with the staff representatives/ unions in a timely manner.
Is this the end for Rugby ? on 20:14 - Jul 25 by onehunglow
If it is the death of rugby,many in Wales will celebrate it and that will leave us with just one professional sport to follow. The anti eggers must be creaming themselves
It should certainly see the end of boxing at all levels.
[Post edited 25 Jul 2022 20:16]
I'll stick with it's all down to steroids have you seen the size of these egg chasers bet they all got massive zits on the thier backs
0
Is this the end for Rugby ? on 09:16 - Jul 27 with 1201 views
Is this the end for Rugby ? on 09:00 - Jul 27 by CountyJim
I'll stick with it's all down to steroids have you seen the size of these egg chasers bet they all got massive zits on the thier backs
As far as the amateur scene is concerned, it probably is prevalent. Don't think there is any link between steroids and brain damage, but it's fair question
0
Is this the end for Rugby ? on 10:59 - Jul 27 with 1168 views
Is this the end for Rugby ? on 18:39 - Jul 25 by raynor94
Getting numerous concussions isn't being tough.
This never happened in the 70s, and 80s its just like American football now without the protection
The game was different in the seventies and eighties. Wales had players who were so fast and graceful they wouldn’t even leave footprints if they were playing in the snow who would jink and dance their way around contact. Nowadays the game is just played by monsters who’s sole goal is to just smash their way over the gain line, recycle rinse and repeat until you get a penalty.
When you play a contact sport you are doing it voluntarily and assume the risks it is part and parcel of the whole experience as well as the enjoyment. The only way a sportman I think can claim brain injury resulting from playing a contact sport retrospectively is if an action was taken outside the rules/laws of the game resulting in that injury. EG John Ashworth stamping on JPR 's head or JIm Mills' assault on an Australian RL player or Shumachers felling of Batiiston in the football world cup These were obvious and blatant actions which were easily witnessed by all present . Allied to this is the fact that you have to apply the remoteness of damage test ie Was the action definitely the cause of the subsequent brain injury . if there was a KO then that is prima facia evidence of Brian injury occurring because a KO is the body's self protection mechanism against further Brain damage. This is the problem you have when the injury manifests itself years later if you are going to pursue a claim . Also injuries to the person I think must be actionable within a 3 years time limit so I am not sure how a legal claim is going to operate if it is outside that time scale? If actions were committed and were clearly outside the laws and spirit of the game and resulting in a brain injury then I would think your case is stronger . The problem rugby has is a lot of actions resulting in possible brain injury go unnoticed in the general Melee of the game and few are deemed outside the laws or reckless. These body on body collisions become accumulative in damaging the brain , that is the problem and it is true that the game has become more collision oriented and players bigger and faster . TMO's are having an impact in this area though as anyone who witnessed the clearout of the Irish winger by an All Black player in the second test will know It was clearly reckless outside the laws of the game and resulted in stunning the Irish player. The All Black was sinbinned but in my opinion should have been sent off . The Irish player stayed on Was he concussed ? probably , who knows ? but it was a huge hit. This brings us to the next thing in that players sometimes need protecting from themselves and will play on "through the fog" because they don't want to go off or let the team down . I must admit I was guilty of this on one occasion ' HIA protocols in rugby and football are having a beneficial effect in that they are drawing attention to the players' welfare and a step in the right direction. One other very important factor is the role of the referee .The Ref is the sole arbiter of what goes on aided and abetted by linesmen /TMO's and his role is vital in preventing reckless dangerous actions .In boxing the evidence that Brain injury is occurring is right in front of his eyes not hidden in plain sight like on a rugby field so there is no excuse for not stepping in and protecting a fighter who is being pummelled about the head without fighting back. This area of law- negligence is not straight forward in these cases and depends on many factors . To successfully bring a case against a sporting organisation like the WRU would involve the input of many professionals in medicine and law not least the fact that the partipant actively voluntarily took part .
0
Is this the end for Rugby ? on 15:54 - Jul 27 with 1103 views
Is this the end for Rugby ? on 12:37 - Jul 27 by howenjack
When you play a contact sport you are doing it voluntarily and assume the risks it is part and parcel of the whole experience as well as the enjoyment. The only way a sportman I think can claim brain injury resulting from playing a contact sport retrospectively is if an action was taken outside the rules/laws of the game resulting in that injury. EG John Ashworth stamping on JPR 's head or JIm Mills' assault on an Australian RL player or Shumachers felling of Batiiston in the football world cup These were obvious and blatant actions which were easily witnessed by all present . Allied to this is the fact that you have to apply the remoteness of damage test ie Was the action definitely the cause of the subsequent brain injury . if there was a KO then that is prima facia evidence of Brian injury occurring because a KO is the body's self protection mechanism against further Brain damage. This is the problem you have when the injury manifests itself years later if you are going to pursue a claim . Also injuries to the person I think must be actionable within a 3 years time limit so I am not sure how a legal claim is going to operate if it is outside that time scale? If actions were committed and were clearly outside the laws and spirit of the game and resulting in a brain injury then I would think your case is stronger . The problem rugby has is a lot of actions resulting in possible brain injury go unnoticed in the general Melee of the game and few are deemed outside the laws or reckless. These body on body collisions become accumulative in damaging the brain , that is the problem and it is true that the game has become more collision oriented and players bigger and faster . TMO's are having an impact in this area though as anyone who witnessed the clearout of the Irish winger by an All Black player in the second test will know It was clearly reckless outside the laws of the game and resulted in stunning the Irish player. The All Black was sinbinned but in my opinion should have been sent off . The Irish player stayed on Was he concussed ? probably , who knows ? but it was a huge hit. This brings us to the next thing in that players sometimes need protecting from themselves and will play on "through the fog" because they don't want to go off or let the team down . I must admit I was guilty of this on one occasion ' HIA protocols in rugby and football are having a beneficial effect in that they are drawing attention to the players' welfare and a step in the right direction. One other very important factor is the role of the referee .The Ref is the sole arbiter of what goes on aided and abetted by linesmen /TMO's and his role is vital in preventing reckless dangerous actions .In boxing the evidence that Brain injury is occurring is right in front of his eyes not hidden in plain sight like on a rugby field so there is no excuse for not stepping in and protecting a fighter who is being pummelled about the head without fighting back. This area of law- negligence is not straight forward in these cases and depends on many factors . To successfully bring a case against a sporting organisation like the WRU would involve the input of many professionals in medicine and law not least the fact that the partipant actively voluntarily took part .
I bow to your obviously much greater knowledge.
Fantastic post
0
Is this the end for Rugby ? on 16:11 - Jul 27 with 1098 views
Is this the end for Rugby ? on 21:25 - Jul 25 by Flashberryjack
I would think that all contact sports will be ultimately banned in the not to distant future, no organisation of any sport will be able to sustain the probability of paying out massive amounts of compensation money.
The legal profession, especially the ambulance chasers will be rubbing their hands.
I can't see that happening, instead I see clauses in contracts, players having to acept the risks or look for another career.
Truthfully, every job carries risks, I have to deal with homeless people, drug addicts, alcoholics/drunks and gangs of teens and I don't get paid as much in ten years as many of these rugby players do in one year. Besides which, they have massive perks that I can only dream about.
The rugby authorities, and other contact sport authorities have to make changes, they have to make the sports safer but I don't really see the game collapsing.
Is this the end for Rugby ? on 15:54 - Jul 27 by Sirjohnalot
I bow to your obviously much greater knowledge.
Fantastic post
I didn't read it all and obviously I know very little about the law but, isn't it still the case that if the rugby authorities knew the risks, knew that the big hits could cause demetia and hid that from players then they are in the wrong and possibly liable?
After all I voluntarily (nay, eagerly) played football in the Swansea league for 23 years and it wasn't until after I stopped playing that it became clear heading the ball too much could cause dementia. However, what if it could be proven that FIFA and all the worlds football associations knew this in the 60's and hid the evidence? isn't that in itself a criminally negligent act? Doesn't it all come down to when the rugby authorities knew about these things and when they did something about them? Then whether or not what they did was good enough?
Is this the end for Rugby ? on 17:23 - Jul 27 by Catullus
I didn't read it all and obviously I know very little about the law but, isn't it still the case that if the rugby authorities knew the risks, knew that the big hits could cause demetia and hid that from players then they are in the wrong and possibly liable?
After all I voluntarily (nay, eagerly) played football in the Swansea league for 23 years and it wasn't until after I stopped playing that it became clear heading the ball too much could cause dementia. However, what if it could be proven that FIFA and all the worlds football associations knew this in the 60's and hid the evidence? isn't that in itself a criminally negligent act? Doesn't it all come down to when the rugby authorities knew about these things and when they did something about them? Then whether or not what they did was good enough?
My knowledge of negligence came from the 1st year of my degree in 1997, it's woefully out of date, so I'm guessing at best.
My best guess is that it will be down to the post care they given or not given. Assessing concussion, when can they come back, emphasis on bigger players, should there be an upper limit ? Independent Drs, concussion means at least 6 weeks out, eg.
Do we reduce the number of players to offer more space ? Get rid of the flankers eg ? Put things in place to encourage running rugby ? I used to play in Uni and was fast, (I'm only 5'5 and under 10 stone) Not sure I'd want to play now
0
Is this the end for Rugby ? on 18:39 - Jul 27 with 1026 views
Is this the end for Rugby ? on 17:23 - Jul 27 by Catullus
I didn't read it all and obviously I know very little about the law but, isn't it still the case that if the rugby authorities knew the risks, knew that the big hits could cause demetia and hid that from players then they are in the wrong and possibly liable?
After all I voluntarily (nay, eagerly) played football in the Swansea league for 23 years and it wasn't until after I stopped playing that it became clear heading the ball too much could cause dementia. However, what if it could be proven that FIFA and all the worlds football associations knew this in the 60's and hid the evidence? isn't that in itself a criminally negligent act? Doesn't it all come down to when the rugby authorities knew about these things and when they did something about them? Then whether or not what they did was good enough?
Jeff Astle's daughter is taking up a case against the FA for her father who suffered dementia she says as a result of him heading heavy footballs back in the day. As someone posted earlier on, people from all walks of life get dementia . What is so striking though is the ages of the ex players getting afflicted and the sheer numbers which is strong evidence there is a link What modern medicine does is provide the best up to date data so that players or rather would be players can make an informed choice . Do they want to accept the inherent risks and still participate ? this will obviously have an adverse affect on the uptake of rugby at grassroots level-parents will be less keen to push their offspring towards the game given the evidence and schools might be less likely to participate. https://www.theguardian.com/fo
0
Is this the end for Rugby ? on 18:44 - Jul 27 with 1021 views
The game was different in the seventies and eighties. Wales had players who were so fast and graceful they wouldn’t even leave footprints if they were playing in the snow who would jink and dance their way around contact. Nowadays the game is just played by monsters who’s sole goal is to just smash their way over the gain line, recycle rinse and repeat until you get a penalty.
Excellent summary
You give it out, you take it back it`s all part of the game
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.