[PopTart]

Bobby's case against RFL : Fri Oct 29, 2021 7:57 am  

What do people think to this? Seems to be a lot of opinion both ways.

Personally I think there is a certain duty of care all employers need to consider and in a contact sport it certainly is an issue that needs to be managed well (and I think the RFL are putting a lot of effort into it.

However, I'm not sure you can go back in time and sue for something no one else really knew at the time either. All sports have learned more about head injuries recently, and I though I don't really know the medical side as well as some do, it seems to be being taken seriously.

Re: Bobby's case against RFL : Fri Oct 29, 2021 8:23 am  

I think it’s a fairly difficult case as obviously like you said we’re talking about a time where not a lot of research was known about Chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE) or other effects like early onset dementia etc. Obviously everyone is different in regards to the effects of any contact sports, don’t know if it’s genetic susceptibility or what, only more research will find out. In regards to historical cases I remember when miners (my dad was a miner) could claim for vibration white finger as a result of machinery they used, so shows in other areas back dated cases have happened, and that’s just what I know of.

Re: Bobby's case against RFL : Fri Oct 29, 2021 8:26 am  

PopTart wrote:

What do people think to this? Seems to be a lot of opinion both ways.

Personally I think there is a certain duty of care all employers need to consider and in a contact sport it certainly is an issue that needs to be managed well (and I think the RFL are putting a lot of effort into it.

However, I'm not sure you can go back in time and sue for something no one else really knew at the time either. All sports have learned more about head injuries recently, and I though I don't really know the medical side as well as some do, it seems to be being taken seriously.

Of course it’s an issue now and rightly so but as you say in retrospect it’s dodgy.

However you couldn’t pick a worse player as your standard barer, imho he’s an unpleasant person and a chancer.

Re: Bobby's case against RFL : Fri Oct 29, 2021 9:43 am  

you have to feel sorry for anyone that has to deal with dementia even players with a unsavory character like some are but also alcohol plays a part too in memory loss whether it shows up with similar brain damage makes you wonder if that also plays a part

[PopTart]

Re: Bobby's case against RFL : Fri Oct 29, 2021 11:03 am  

Pat Bateman wrote:

I think it’s a fairly difficult case as obviously like you said we’re talking about a time where not a lot of research was known about Chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE) or other effects like early onset dementia etc. Obviously everyone is different in regards to the effects of any contact sports, don’t know if it’s genetic susceptibility or what, only more research will find out. In regards to historical cases I remember when miners (my dad was a miner) could claim for vibration white finger as a result of machinery they used, so shows in other areas back dated cases have happened, and that’s just what I know of.

The VWF and COPD cases are a good example but they were sueing the government effectively and it was a mass tort case. They decided on measures of severity and allocated amounts that could be claimed.
Was good in some ways but as I'm sure you'll know, some of the COPD cases died before they got their money.

I'm not sure how they'll do it in this case and I'm certain the RFL haven't got themoney to compensate to that level.

[PopTart]

Re: Bobby's case against RFL : Fri Oct 29, 2021 11:04 am  

snowie wrote:

you have to feel sorry for anyone that has to deal with dementia even players with a unsavory character like some are but also alcohol plays a part too in memory loss whether it shows up with similar brain damage makes you wonder if that also plays a part

That's unfortunately why the case is so difficult. Logic says the concussions have played a part but how can you prove it with all the other things that influence it

Re: Bobby's case against RFL : Fri Oct 29, 2021 11:05 am  

PopTart wrote:

The VWF and COPD cases are a good example but they were sueing the government effectively and it was a mass tort case. They decided on measures of severity and allocated amounts that could be claimed.
Was good in some ways but as I'm sure you'll know, some of the COPD cases died before they got their money.

I'm not sure how they'll do it in this case and I'm certain the RFL haven't got themoney to compensate to that level.

I believe that if you smoked too would it of nullified the claim for COPD? Not sure.

Re: Bobby's case against RFL : Fri Oct 29, 2021 11:07 am  

snowie wrote:

you have to feel sorry for anyone that has to deal with dementia even players with a unsavory character like some are but also alcohol plays a part too in memory loss whether it shows up with similar brain damage makes you wonder if that also plays a part

Korsakoff syndrome/ dementia is alcohol induced. Pretty sad

[PopTart]

Re: Bobby's case against RFL : Fri Oct 29, 2021 11:25 am  

Pat Bateman wrote:

I believe that if you smoked too would it of nullified the claim for COPD? Not sure.

It didn't nullify but it reduced the number.
But to be honest, for that generation, who didn't.

I worked on this for a few years.
Unfortunately many of the miners were ripped off by unions and solicitors trying to take an extra cut. A few ended in jail terms.
All public knowledge now so I'm not saying anything confidential.

Re: Bobby's case against RFL : Fri Oct 29, 2021 11:25 am  

It's a really difficult one.

There is a maxim in law called "volenti non fit injuria", which states basically that if you partake in risky activity, you assume the risk and can't complain if the risks happen (you volunteer to the risk of injury). In relation to rugby, however, the scientific knowledge potentially wasn't there, and you have to judge it on the basis of scientific evidence at the time.

There was also the culture at the time, of very aggressive play, fights not heavily penalised, punch-ups frequent (of which Bobbie was a regular and enthusiastic participant), with players encouraged to shake their heads and get on with it.

On the other hand, I feel for players who gave their all in a style we loved and are now suffering for it.

Also, I can't deny that my concern is for the game I follow. The RFL insurers will pick up the tab, if there is to be one, but my worry is that the cost of player-insurance will then become too expensive for the game, and the knowledge of a problem that is more to do with how it was played and managed thirty years ago than now will discourage players, so these legal actions may kill the game as we know it.