Concussions and Protecting Our Players

[stillmissit]

I know a lot of park footballers that have had their fair share of head knocks but I'd also say have done a lot of damage to the brain off the field with extracurricular activities.

Hardest group to track I would think with limited medical support (can be a bloke from the game before and at best a Physio). Usually playing with mates who will just listen if you say you're all good. Not watched by many others (family, Friends) who can intervene and follow up treatment or stand down periods don't exist.

Ghost, Your description of park footballers is I guess correct but I suspect there are few current park warriors who have no understanding of this issue.
Brain damage could be a huge issue but I am always wary of these 'big issues'. In the 80's repetitive strain injury was a huge issue and the doctors made a quid out of it but it turned out to be not a thing and now it is rare.
I am not saying that concussion damage is a myth, I am just happy to go along with preventative measures and see how it turns out. If the claims made in that 9 year study turn out to be correct the hospital's records will record it but not sure if it has shown up so far and if not, why not?
The amount of debilitation and %age affected should also be a factor.
Pro rugby players claiming they were used 'just as meat' and didn't remember anything of the RWC game in 2003 whilst being paid in the top 0.? of the population and now claiming millions in compensation I find questionable, particularly as this apparently is not provable until you are dead.

 

[The Ghost of Raelene]

It's sad if anyone is suffering from brain damage and yes players have been used as assets of the team (meat). But I also don't believe the players would have done anything else as it made them everything they have.

I think we will see things like player pensions and support funds reach a large scale similar to what exists in the NFL and it will be tiered as to what level you played and for how long.

I'd be interested to know what percentage of past players would have stopped playing with the knowledge they have now or is the juice worth the squeeze?

 

[Derpus]

I hope your legal opinion is correct. Your final statement lines up with 2 reports I read where 'Can Rugby Survive' was the appox. headline.
With the amount of press about concussion issues, I want to see the numbers of men not just affected but disabled. I have read the 9 year analysis of weekend warriors who had concussion/s and found it interesting. As an old guy who's met many old guys, the discussion sometimes comes around to drop off of mental acuity, and it ain't minor, the brain evidently starts to drop off after mid twenties but by the time you are in your 60's the first reduction in memory becomes apparent, by your 70's the drop off of many brain functions is no joking matter.
The question then is what is natural and what is a result of concussion/s? Early onset dementia is on the increase and not just in concussed ex rugby players.

Re your legal opinion. https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2020/dec/08/steve-thompson-former-rugby-union-players-dementia-landmark-legal-case

Do you know the outcome? Should be close to a resolution over 2 years on.

I could easily be completely wrong. Predicting what a court will have to say about an issue is always fraught, even for seemingly straight forward matters.

 

[Braveheart81]

Do you know the outcome? Should be close to a resolution over 2 years on.

The most recent update I can find is from July 2022 where it was "destined for the courts" after the parties failed to reach a settlement.

 

[Dan54]

I would be surprised if we see an outcome of courtcase in next 3-4 years, think they tend to drag on a fair bit.

 

[LeCheese]

Landmark class action chases up to $1bn compensation for alleged long-term concussion damage to AFL players

The action, lodged in the Victorian supreme court against the AFL, alleges loss, pain and suffering to more than 60 former players

www.theguardian.com

The AFL last year apologised to past players who were “let down” by the league’s concussion research project after an independent review criticised the study.

It was underfunded and under-resourced, the review found, and some AFL players still dumbed down their baseline concussion testing in pre-season to reduce the chance of a concussion diagnosis on game day.

Unrelated to the class-action (or maybe not), but it's an interesting note. I've heard similar from people who worked on one of the early concussion monitoring programs done by UQ with the Broncos - it was very evident that some players were tanking their baselines, and finding other means of gaming the system.

 

[Highlander35]

Sean Lamont was strongly rumoured to have failed a baseline test with Glasgow during one of his later preseasons.

Having no idea how tests work specifically, whether that's accurate or a mild exaggeration, it says a lot about what you can expect Pro players are doing.

 

[KOB1987]

Landmark class action chases up to $1bn compensation for alleged long-term concussion damage to AFL players

The action, lodged in the Victorian supreme court against the AFL, alleges loss, pain and suffering to more than 60 former players

www.theguardian.com

Unrelated to the class-action (or maybe not), but it's an interesting note. I've heard similar from people who worked on one of the early concussion monitoring programs done by UQ with the Broncos - it was very evident that some players were tanking their baselines, and finding other means of gaming the system.

Are any of the players who dumbed down their baselines the same ones who are now suing the AFL? We probably won’t know, but I wonder nevertheless.

 

[LeCheese]

Are any of the players who dumbed down their baselines the same ones who are now suing the AFL? We probably won’t know, but I wonder nevertheless.

Yeah, that was my suggestion about it not necessarily being unrelated. No doubt there were pretty robust data privacy and anonymity assurances with the study, so unlikely we'll find out nor be sure whether it made any difference.

 

[The Ghost of Raelene]

I know this has been done by NRL players. At least in the past.

A lot of younger players are a lot more aware and willing to look after their health.

 

[Braveheart81]

Are any of the players who dumbed down their baselines the same ones who are now suing the AFL? We probably won’t know, but I wonder nevertheless.

I think the AFL have been one of the worst when it comes to concussion.

Incidences are reasonably high because of the way the game is played (players running towards each other with eyes for the ball on the ground) and most of the collisions are considered part of the game so there is no foul play element.

When there has been foul play for high bumps etc. the suspensions are generally tiny.

Worst of all it has never seemed like they are proactive to sit players out who have had obvious serious head knocks and were wobbly on their feet.

 

[The Ghost of Raelene]

AFL has shown little to no regard for their players through multiple issues both on-field and off-field.

 

[LeCheese]

On another note it will be very interesting to see how the NRL manages Ponga now - possibly the first player of this era to have significant and repeated concussions? From the noise being made so far, it seems like it'll be a lengthy period on the sidelines - thankfully.

 

[The Ghost of Raelene]

On another note it will be very interesting to see how the NRL manages Ponga now - possibly the first player of this era to have significant and repeated concussions? From the noise being made so far, it seems like it'll be a lengthy period on the sidelines - thankfully.

2 others come to mind. Boyd Cordner who retired following another concussion following a long lay off and Luke Keary who is the most like Ponga right now. He's had quite a few and been sat down last year for long periods. Has been fine through the League WC and the first 2 games of the season but you always think is he 1 away from it being over.

Is there a point where the teams/governing body retire you even if you don't agree? Age would be a big part of this. Cordner was 29/30 so while he's had his career cut short by 3-4 years, he had made a lot of money and gets paid out. It's not like Ponga who's 24 with a decade ahead of him all going well.

 

[LeCheese]

Is there a point where the teams/governing body retire you even if you don't agree? Age would be a big part of this. Cordner was 29/30 so while he's had his career cut short by 3-4 years, he had made a lot of money and gets paid out. It's not like Ponga who's 24 with a decade ahead of him all going well.

You'd have to think that at some point he becomes a liability, both from a contractual and registration (insurance) perspective. In that instance though, it's a very clear and direct loss of income as a result of concussions, which could make things interesting from a legal perspective.

 

[Wilson]

2 others come to mind. Boyd Cordner who retired following another concussion following a long lay off and Luke Keary who is the most like Ponga right now. He's had quite a few and been sat down last year for long periods. Has been fine through the League WC and the first 2 games of the season but you always think is he 1 away from it being over.

Is there a point where the teams/governing body retire you even if you don't agree? Age would be a big part of this. Cordner was 29/30 so while he's had his career cut short by 3-4 years, he had made a lot of money and gets paid out. It's not like Ponga who's 24 with a decade ahead of him all going well.

I know French rugby has medical retirements that can be forced on players for serious injuries, but I believe it's open to exploitation for the clubs benefits when they don't want to spend a year+ rehabbing a player and honouring the length and value of their contract.

Any system bought in like that should have to either force the club to pay out the contract (with a salary cap exemption) or come with sufficient league backed retirement and medical cover, probably some combination of the two.

 

[The Ghost of Raelene]

I know the NRL medical retirements do pay out the contract and it doesn't count on the Salary Cap. I have no idea about the retirement aspects, but I'd something would be negotiated between agents and the clubs if not the NRL. In the case of Cordner who was the Captain of the Club, NSW and Kangaroos at the time he works for the Roosters now and would be a job for life situation no doubt.

 

[Wilson]

I know the NRL medical retirements do pay out the contract and it doesn't count on the Salary Cap. I have no idea about the retirement aspects, but I'd something would be negotiated between agents and the clubs if not the NRL. In the case of Cordner who was the Captain of the Club, NSW and Kangaroos at the time he works for the Roosters now and would be a job for life situation no doubt.

My point is more that in the case of medical retirement that retirement package and medical support shouldn't be negotiated, it should be guaranteed, particularly if the league is voiding existing contracts. There shouldn't be any room for a situation like Alexandre Lapandry's, where these systems are exploited to leave a player unsupported, even if medical retirement is the right decision for the player's health.

 

[The Ghost of Raelene]

I absolutely agree with that. There should be no luck involved with hoping your club will be in a position to and have the attitude to support you.

 

[Braveheart81]

My point is more that in the case of medical retirement that retirement package and medical support shouldn't be negotiated, it should be guaranteed, particularly if the league is voiding existing contracts. There shouldn't be any room for a situation like Alexandre Lapandry's, where these systems are exploited to leave a player unsupported, even if medical retirement is the right decision for the player's health.

The issue with players requiring surgery and rehab post career has come to a head recently in the NRL.

Players are covered for 12 months following retirement but this falls short in a couple of ways. Blake Ferguson played a decade plus in the NRL and played State of Origin etc. but went to the UK for a season or two at the end of his career. He comes home retired requiring plenty of work to fix up his body but has no coverage from the NRL.

Other players put off surgery for a bunch of things and then when they finish their career they can't fit in everything in that 12 month window.

Some people argue that the players are well paid so should look after their own responsibilities but my view is that it is the NRL's problem and that it should form part of their overall payments to players (a couple of percent of revenue going into a fund for players etc.). The NRL are the players. The two things aren't mutually exclusive groups.

On another note it will be very interesting to see how the NRL manages Ponga now - possibly the first player of this era to have significant and repeated concussions? From the noise being made so far, it seems like it'll be a lengthy period on the sidelines - thankfully.

Victor Radley from the Roosters is also a significant issue. He had a shocking concussion last year and had one to start this season.