Former Huddersfield Giants and St Helens player confirms degenerative brain disease diagnosis

[Ipinwigan]

There’s a difference in playing for the love of the game and knowing you might be a bit stiff and have aches and pains vs confirmed CTE and retirement at 31…

Whilst injuries are part and parcel of sport, there is so much evidence showing the detrimental impact of head trauma.

A reduction in head contacts + relevant protocols is an absolute must, I’m unsure how anyone could disagree.

Where I have issue is with inconsistency in decisions / reffing and sin bins for head shots that are no fault of the defender.

As I have already siad, you are never going to eliminate head contact, unless you stop playing the game or change it completely, so they either accept it or give up

But you can try to reduce head contact with increased punishment and changes to rules. They’ve already proved that it is working with a reported reduction in number of head contacts.

Nobody has said that eliminating head contacts is the goal or is what is required either so where are you getting that from?

Should they get rid of seat belts because they don’t save every single life that is in a crash?

"But you can try to reduce head contact with increased punishment" absolute rubbish, it wont' make a difference, there is always going to be head contact.
The Jonny Lomax ban is a complete joke, two players running at pace towards eachother resulting in an accidental clash, 3 game ban.
The idea of below the shoulder tackles, now on the back burner, because as you say, head contact is less, but if it was brought in, there is probably more chance of head on head contact, unless they then demand that the tackler has to bend thier back in the tackle.
I don't think any player in the current game goes out with the intention to hit high, they are accidents, so hitting them with bans will not work.

[nathan_rugby]

As I have already siad, you are never going to eliminate head contact, unless you stop playing the game or change it completely, so they either accept it or give up

But you can try to reduce head contact with increased punishment and changes to rules. They’ve already proved that it is working with a reported reduction in number of head contacts.

Nobody has said that eliminating head contacts is the goal or is what is required either so where are you getting that from?

Should they get rid of seat belts because they don’t save every single life that is in a crash?

"But you can try to reduce head contact with increased punishment" absolute rubbish, it wont' make a difference, there is always going to be head contact.
The Jonny Lomax ban is a complete joke, two players running at pace towards eachother resulting in an accidental clash, 3 game ban.
The idea of below the shoulder tackles, now on the back burner, because as you say, head contact is less, but if it was brought in, there is probably more chance of head on head contact, unless they then demand that the tackler has to bend thier back in the tackle.
I don't think any player in the current game goes out with the intention to hit high, they are accidents, so hitting them with bans will not work.

I already said in an earlier post that most have an issue with inconsistent reffing and decisions where the defender gets punished through no fault of your own.

And you don’t think that players can adjust their tackling technique to reduce the risk of contacting with the head?

I get you clearly don’t want things to change for your own selfish reasons, but half of your posts are just assumptions and making things up.

How anyone can read about what is happening to players like Jones and Stevie Ward at 31 and 27 years old respectively and just shrug their shoulders and say it’s a part of sport is deluded.

Rugby league is already struggling to attract players in the country to take up the sport, what do you think it’s going to do to participation when things like this are prevalent?

[Ipinwigan]

But you can try to reduce head contact with increased punishment and changes to rules. They’ve already proved that it is working with a reported reduction in number of head contacts.

Nobody has said that eliminating head contacts is the goal or is what is required either so where are you getting that from?

Should they get rid of seat belts because they don’t save every single life that is in a crash?

"But you can try to reduce head contact with increased punishment" absolute rubbish, it wont' make a difference, there is always going to be head contact.
The Jonny Lomax ban is a complete joke, two players running at pace towards eachother resulting in an accidental clash, 3 game ban.
The idea of below the shoulder tackles, now on the back burner, because as you say, head contact is less, but if it was brought in, there is probably more chance of head on head contact, unless they then demand that the tackler has to bend thier back in the tackle.
I don't think any player in the current game goes out with the intention to hit high, they are accidents, so hitting them with bans will not work.

I already said in an earlier post that most have an issue with inconsistent reffing and decisions where the defender gets punished through no fault of your own.

And you don’t think that players can adjust their tackling technique to reduce the risk of contacting with the head?

I get you clearly don’t want things to change for your own selfish reasons, but half of your posts are just assumptions and making things up.

How anyone can read about what is happening to players like Jones and Stevie Ward at 31 and 27 years old respectively and just shrug their shoulders and say it’s a part of sport is deluded.

Rugby league is already struggling to attract players in the country to take up the sport, what do you think it’s going to do to participation when things like this are prevalent?

It's also going to loose fans with rediculous bans for accidents.
Not saying trying to change things is a bad thing, but they are idealistic and will never work, the game is too fast and head contact will always occur.
Dom Manfredi, was out of the game age 27, because of persistant knee injuries.
Perhaps we should just stop the game altogether because it isn't good for the body.

[nathan_rugby]

"But you can try to reduce head contact with increased punishment" absolute rubbish, it wont' make a difference, there is always going to be head contact.
The Jonny Lomax ban is a complete joke, two players running at pace towards eachother resulting in an accidental clash, 3 game ban.
The idea of below the shoulder tackles, now on the back burner, because as you say, head contact is less, but if it was brought in, there is probably more chance of head on head contact, unless they then demand that the tackler has to bend thier back in the tackle.
I don't think any player in the current game goes out with the intention to hit high, they are accidents, so hitting them with bans will not work.

I already said in an earlier post that most have an issue with inconsistent reffing and decisions where the defender gets punished through no fault of your own.

And you don’t think that players can adjust their tackling technique to reduce the risk of contacting with the head?

I get you clearly don’t want things to change for your own selfish reasons, but half of your posts are just assumptions and making things up.

How anyone can read about what is happening to players like Jones and Stevie Ward at 31 and 27 years old respectively and just shrug their shoulders and say it’s a part of sport is deluded.

Rugby league is already struggling to attract players in the country to take up the sport, what do you think it’s going to do to participation when things like this are prevalent?

It's also going to loose fans with rediculous bans for accidents.
Not saying trying to change things is a bad thing, but they are idealistic and will never work, the game is too fast and head contact will always occur.
Dom Manfredi, was out of the game age 27, because of persistant knee injuries.
Perhaps we should just stop the game altogether because it isn't good for the body.

It is well within the gift of the RFL to change the ruling on punishments for accidents…

Whether they do or not is a different story; but it’s too early to dismiss that. The off season will be interesting.

Mentioning Manfredi and his knee injuries is just a lame and ignorant example.

[Wigan_forever1985]

i suspect head "contact" is a small element of this other every single boxer on would surely end up with a brain injury as their entire sport is head contact.

I think more likely in rugby issues revolve around the deceleration - this is something you cannot stop the brain after all is a floating object and when you decelerate fast you brain hits the inside of the skull. I imagine as players get fitter and faster those deceleration instances become worse.

In either case these are small amounts of people suffering when you consider the amount of people playing the sport. Its really tragic but i think more research needs to be done into it, are certain people more susceptible than others? i look at luke thompson whos struggled with this in the past seemed to get concussed "easier" than others, does running style influence etc

Rugby gives a lot of people a life they could simply never achieve without it and there is a risk of your body being hurt, how many have broken their necks etc

[Mike]

I agree.
As awful as it is, these players play for the love of the game. Unfortunately we have aftermath injuries such as this.

There’s a difference in playing for the love of the game and knowing you might be a bit stiff and have aches and pains vs confirmed CTE and retirement at 31…

Whilst injuries are part and parcel of sport, there is so much evidence showing the detrimental impact of head trauma.

A reduction in head contacts + relevant protocols is an absolute must, I’m unsure how anyone could disagree.

Where I have issue is with inconsistency in decisions / reffing and sin bins for head shots that are no fault of the defender.

As I have already siad, you are never going to eliminate head contact, unless you stop playing the game or change it completely, so they either accept it or give up

We can't eliminate 100% so lets not try to reduce by 75-90%? Sound reasoning.

[Ipinwigan]

I already said in an earlier post that most have an issue with inconsistent reffing and decisions where the defender gets punished through no fault of your own.

And you don’t think that players can adjust their tackling technique to reduce the risk of contacting with the head?

I get you clearly don’t want things to change for your own selfish reasons, but half of your posts are just assumptions and making things up.

How anyone can read about what is happening to players like Jones and Stevie Ward at 31 and 27 years old respectively and just shrug their shoulders and say it’s a part of sport is deluded.

Rugby league is already struggling to attract players in the country to take up the sport, what do you think it’s going to do to participation when things like this are prevalent?

It's also going to loose fans with rediculous bans for accidents.
Not saying trying to change things is a bad thing, but they are idealistic and will never work, the game is too fast and head contact will always occur.
Dom Manfredi, was out of the game age 27, because of persistant knee injuries.
Perhaps we should just stop the game altogether because it isn't good for the body.

It is well within the gift of the RFL to change the ruling on punishments for accidents…

Whether they do or not is a different story; but it’s too early to dismiss that. The off season will be interesting.

Mentioning Manfredi and his knee injuries is just a lame and ignorant example.

Oh, so it's only head injuries that count is it?

[Mike]

It's also going to loose fans with rediculous bans for accidents.
Not saying trying to change things is a bad thing, but they are idealistic and will never work, the game is too fast and head contact will always occur.
Dom Manfredi, was out of the game age 27, because of persistant knee injuries.
Perhaps we should just stop the game altogether because it isn't good for the body.

It is well within the gift of the RFL to change the ruling on punishments for accidents…

Whether they do or not is a different story; but it’s too early to dismiss that. The off season will be interesting.

Mentioning Manfredi and his knee injuries is just a lame and ignorant example.

Oh, so it's only head injuries that count is it?

If you consider needing a knee replacement as significant as dementia then they both count. I consider dementia rather worse.

[Ipinwigan]

It is well within the gift of the RFL to change the ruling on punishments for accidents…

Whether they do or not is a different story; but it’s too early to dismiss that. The off season will be interesting.

Mentioning Manfredi and his knee injuries is just a lame and ignorant example.

Oh, so it's only head injuries that count is it?

If you consider needing a knee replacement as significant as dementia then they both count. I consider dementia rather worse.

The point I was making, is that there are all kinds of injuries that players suffer during their playing career, that can end their career, or have long term effects when they finish playing.
So if they are going to start suing for head related injuries, why not have a go for other injuries as well and blame it as a duty of care issue.
Some people always want someone else to blame, they need to take ownership of their own decisions, to play a sport with potential life changing results.

[Mike]

Oh, so it's only head injuries that count is it?

If you consider needing a knee replacement as significant as dementia then they both count. I consider dementia rather worse.

The point I was making, is that there are all kinds of injuries that players suffer during their playing career, that can end their career, or have long term effects when they finish playing.
So if they are going to start suing for head related injuries, why not have a go for other injuries as well and blame it as a duty of care issue.
Some people always want someone else to blame, they need to take ownership of their own decisions, to play a sport with potential life changing results.

If the RFL knew of an action it could take to prevent many knee injuries, such as banning artificial pitches if they found out they were excessively dangerous etc, and didn't take it, then yes players could use about that. Legal action is not about failing to take personal responsibility, it's holding organisations accountable when they had information you did not have and failed to act on it.

I'm really not sure why people are desperate to see head impacts as part of the game to the point where they'll diminish the suffering of someone in their 30s with a dementia diagnosis. For example, we've recently made hip drop tackles illegal (to minimize knee injuries BTW) and there has been no "we're killing the game" outcry about that.