Bombshell law suit over concussion crisis

[balmain boy]

Wearing headgear to prevent concussions is like wearing a tea-towel to prevent getting hit by a bus.

 

[BZN]

@balmain-boy: don't mention that to @tigersbusdriver though.

 

[cochise]

@TrueTiger there is no benefit to wearing it. All they have to do os warn of the risks, have things in place to limit harm, such as current protocols and then players choose if they want to play.

I can see all the points you make cochise,however,even though they are putting HIAs in place and doctors on hand etc,the players are offered big money to play....you dont think they will turn up to play?.My point being that it is a contact sport,players know the risk,the NRL know the risks..Maybe put a notice on all contracts stating that you play at your own risk with a list of severe injuries that could happen to you while participating in this sport..I dont have the answers but outlining the dangers could help reduce the risk of litigation against the NRL..

We are actually agreeing lol. I think it is highly unlikely that a lawsuit against the NRL would win as it appears they are doing all they can to protect players. Some onus needs to be placed on the players decision to play.

 

[Tbone]

The legal test for duty of care and negligence is not whether the governing body had actual knowledge of the risks, it’s whether they ‘ought to have known’. They call this ‘reasonable foreseeability’.

It will come down to the period that the players were playing and what medical evidence was available at the time. Then what systems the governing body at the time had to ensure it knew about the risks and what it did in response (and whether the response was adequate to address the risk).

CTE was first discovered in 2002. I’m not a doctor. Maybe there was other types of known and enduring problems associated with head injuries prior to the discovery of CTE. That might limit damages for CTE prior to that time but leave the door open for other (probably lesser) claims.

It will be interesting to see how this unfolds and to see what changes to the HIA protocols are made in light of this claim.

 

[jirskyr]

@TrueTiger there is no benefit to wearing it. All they have to do os warn of the risks, have things in place to limit harm, such as current protocols and then players choose if they want to play.

Not entirely true - headgear can help prevent external injuries like lacerations, bruising etc. I believe there is also evidence that helmets can prevent severity and occurrence of concussion, though this is more related to bike and NFL-style helmets rather than league headgear.

In response to @TrueTiger, the reason headgear does nothing for concussion is that the brain is an organ sitting in fluid, which is a cushion, but at high speed the brain can be accelerated at high speed against the inside of the skull, causing brain injury.

The NFL then has a related and opposite issue - there is a suggestion that part of the reason why concussion is very serious in US football is *because* players wear helmets, which potentially encourages more aggressive and high-impact collision by players that feel they are protected. Esp. if by wearing a helmet you are doing less damage to the external of your head, but still subject to concussion risk.

 

[oldprop]

@Cultured_Bogan I resemble that remark 😀

 

[mike]

Really nothing to see here. Just some lawyers doing a bit of ambulance chasing to see if there is a quid in it for them. I’d be surprised if any payout results from it.

 

[TrueTiger]

@TrueTiger there is no benefit to wearing it. All they have to do os warn of the risks, have things in place to limit harm, such as current protocols and then players choose if they want to play.

Not entirely true - headgear can help prevent external injuries like lacerations, bruising etc. I believe there is also evidence that helmets can prevent severity and occurrence of concussion, though this is more related to bike and NFL-style helmets rather than league headgear.

In response to @TrueTiger, the reason headgear does nothing for concussion is that the brain is an organ sitting in fluid, which is a cushion, but at high speed the brain can be accelerated at high speed against the inside of the skull, causing brain injury.

The NFL then has a related and opposite issue - there is a suggestion that part of the reason why concussion is very serious in US football is *because* players wear helmets, which potentially encourages more aggressive and high-impact collision by players that feel they are protected. Esp. if by wearing a helmet you are doing less damage to the external of your head, but still subject to concussion risk.

Thanks jirskyr,your explanation shows me that the headgear argument doesnt really hold any significance when it comes to the concussion argument...you are right in your explanation and any headgear would most likely not help much...

 

[OzLuke]

My eldest plays rugby, and we had the to wear headgear or not debate with the coaches. They said that it won't stop concussion but the little niggles and hits in the tackles, not the immediate impact.

 

[happy_tiger]

Most concussions occur through contact to the front of the face / skull , headgear basically gives people a false sense of security

I'd say from the boys that started wearing head gear (which was most ) to how many wear them now 7 years down the track I think maybe 2 still do from the young fellas side , EB has never worn head gear or mouthguards

I hated mouthguards as well , stuffed up my breathing

 

[happy_tiger]

The problem is the game needs to focus on players who aren't superstars of the game

Blokes like Brett Horsnell who at 50 and their lives are a mess because of CTE

 

[happy_tiger]

https://www.msn.com/en-au/sport/more-sports/rugby-league-greats-launch-concussion-lawsuit/ar-AAQ0bqJ?ocid=ASUDHP&li=AAgfLCP

 

[Tiger5150]

That's all well and good and I'm not necessarily contesting that players should not be compensated, but honestly apart from severe penalties in illegal acts that result in concussions, what do they expect the NRL to do? It's a contact sport, if a player slips and falls into a tackle that a defender is already committed to, or fall into a defender that doesn't commit that still results in a concussion, how does the NRL control that?

Playing devil's advocate here of course.

Im not a lawyer....but let me pretend to be for a sec.

I would think that the NRL would not be liable for injuries in the distant past (maybe as recent as Spud etc), but would be liable for damage since they would be reasonable expected to "know" what damage repeated concussions cause. Im not sure when that would be, perhaps at least when the NFL got sued? I would think that the new laws they brought in would mitigate the NRLs liability.


EDIT: Should read the thread before posting, it was all said better then me before I did.

 

[supercoach]

Forgotten who it was but remember something about Tim Sheens banning a player from wearing head gear because he said they were useless and gave the other team something to grab onto that could prevent a try or slow the play the ball down. Anyway all this type of stuff could come back and bite the NRL

 

[Russell]

It’s all about choice isn’t it. You chose to drive your car = possible car accident, you chose to go surfing = possible drowning or shark attack etc etc etc...At the end of the day these guys made their choice to play a contact sport the onus should be placed squarely on their shoulders and nobody else’s.

Absolutely agree Lil.

The law firm wouldn't be in it to make money, would they?

 

[Russell]

@TrueTiger there is no benefit to wearing it. All they have to do os warn of the risks, have things in place to limit harm, such as current protocols and then players choose if they want to play.

I can see all the points you make cochise,however,even though they are putting HIAs in place and doctors on hand etc,the players are offered big money to play....you dont think they will turn up to play?.My point being that it is a contact sport,players know the risk,the NRL know the risks..Maybe put a notice on all contracts stating that you play at your own risk with a list of severe injuries that could happen to you while participating in this sport..I dont have the answers but outlining the dangers could help reduce the risk of litigation against the NRL..

Good post TT - sign for the risk or don't play, simples.

 

[Tiger-ferret]

I could be wrong but many past players didn’t get the financial windfall that the modern players have. They perhaps need money for medical bills etc. or even just feel jaded about the whole situation.

There was a well renound American concussion expert on radio a few years ago saying that in a few decades, contact sports will be extinct. I find that hard to believe but Rugby league has an interesting future ahead with all this stuff.

 

[Devon Head]

The Luke Keary part is a bit odd. It's taking a toll on him but he still continues to play the game? If he has issues down the track he won't be in any position to sue the NRL because he has clearly shown he knows the risk he is taking.

Watch Cordner come out and try sue the league for brain issues in a few years time after he continued to play on about 5 concussions too long.

 

[Tiger-ferret]

The Luke Keary part is a bit odd. It's taking a toll on him but he still continues to play the game? If he has issues down the track he won't be in any position to sue the NRL because he has clearly shown he knows the risk he is taking.

Watch Cordner come out and try sue the league for brain issues in a few years time after he continued to play on about 5 concussions too long.

It’s in the managers interest for players to keep playing and I wouldn’t be surprised if income from a law suit could be part of their income stream?

 

[dazza65]

Well the McManus case didn't go so well for the player involved....