hank37w
Well-known member
@crazycat said in [Royce Simmons](/post/1526372) said:@hank37w said in [Royce Simmons](/post/1526239) said:@fade-to-black said in [Royce Simmons](/post/1526234) said:@tig_prmz said in [Royce Simmons](/post/1526232) said:I think it's moreso about duty of care. No one is forcing them to play but they are surrounded by people they trust with their lives in doctors and physios. So I can understand if there was a lack of duty of care. If more people come with head related injuries and with long term effects of it, NRL will and should be blamed. If people who play Rugby League are more likely to have long term brain related illnesses, it would mean that this sport isn't safe, it isn't regulated well or the code has a pattern of a lack of duty of care.
Where do you draw the line though as far as Duty Of Care is concerned? High-risk sports are described as such for a reason.
100% don't want to degenerate this thread though, it's intended as a place of good wishes for Roycie and his wellbeing.
Pretty sure that if guys like Royce and Turvey had their time over they would still play the game despite what has been discovered about concussion etc. in recent years.
**People play the game because they love the game and it satisfies their competitive side and if they do okay financially out of it then that is a bonus.**
This is the 90's remember. Long before Wayne Bennett would refuse paying Petro 300k to be a prop!
Yes I do remember that and did refer to the financial side of things as being incidental or a bonus if there was much in it.
Think someone else also mentioned on here that Royce actually did say he would do it all again in a heart beat. (or words to that effect)
Probably should have said, "People played the game in the past mainly because they loved the game and the competitiveness at a time where the financial incentives were no where near as great as they are today.