Bobbie Goulding amongst players to sue RFL. Sad to read he has early on set dementia
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-league/59045827
Bobbie Goulding amongst players to sue RFL. Sad to read he has early on set dementia
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-league/59045827
It's very sad for him to get that diagnosis but I can't lie, there is a big part of me that gets angry when I read the bit about them wanting to sue the RFL. Surely there is an element of the fact they knew they were playing a tough, physical game. They knew there were risks. Have protocols and medical guidelines improved in the last 20 years, yes? But does there have to be someone to blame, not for me.
NEVER WRITE OFF THE SAINTS
Just show a clip of Goulding taking out Cowie in the cup match then the subsequent 7 match ban, then show similar incidents in the same season that didn’t result in any bans.
The point I am making is the RFL is open to this action due to the inconsistency at the disciplinary tribunals. Any lawyer in the land could show it up as a sham and claim that the RFL have been aware of these dangers (hence the initial 7match ban) but then did nothing to keep the focus and allowed high shots to go unpunished
I know it’s not just high shots, and it is more to do with the constant minor trauma, but the example of the disciplinary would surely help the case.
A final point it shows up all those teams that have ‘played’ the new HIA and injury protocols to gain on-field advantage are the lowest of the low.
If they win it could mean the end of the game as we know it. However you can’t argue with trying to give the players more protection against head shots, but you have to differentiate between the deliberate highs and those when a player is falling into a tackle.
Didnt Bobby Guilding get the France coaching job and then was fired for getting into a fight in a bar?
I think anything that improves the safety, and especially improves the consistency of the disciplinary is a good thing... But coming from Guilding.. It just seems a bit scammy/shitty. Although obviously I havnt met the guy so that could be a very harsh assumption
NEVER WRITE OFF THE SAINTS
Insta @christianjamescreative
Goulding received an 8 match ban for that tackle, it was certainly harsh compared to others at the time, but I don't see how that will support his case against the RFL?
Conversely, if Cowie were to suffer the same fate, could he not take action against Goulding for deliberately attacking the head? It's a tough sport, prevention and treatment have certainly improved since the link waa made to dementia.
Bobbie and his family have my utmost sympathy, dementia is a terrible disease, I know that first hand. I'm with TYG on this though, I don't see how the RFL could be held to account.
First and foremost is sympathy to Bobbie Goulding and Jason Roach. Two members of the Saints family who have received a cruel diagnosis at such a young age. Goulding was a true legend of the club.
I'm not sure how suing the game is going to work and I'm not going to comment on that, but for a number of years, I've displayed concerns about how the modern obsession with high intensity impact was going to see an explosion in cases of dementia in decades to come. What is truly concerning, therefore, is that players are now seeing these diagnoses from playing the game in an era when such weekly punishment was less intense.
We cannot change the past, but this is possibly one of the most serious developments in modern times for the game. There needs to be a move away from getting players running constantly at brick walls. I've often called for that for the sake of entertainment, but this is more important than that. I fear this is the tip of the iceberg. If scrum halves like Goulding, who had usually passed the ball before being hit, and wingers such as Roach, who touch the ball much less than some of their team mates, are found to have suffered with impact related brain illness, then just what damage are we doing to those who are now running full tilt into high speed collisions much, much more?
THIS YEAR LENDING SUPPORT TO:- St. Helens RLFC, Manchester City, Celtic, Alemannia Aachen, Steps 1 to 6 Non-League Football
Its sad news for the players but I can't help feeling only the Ambulance chasers will win here
Sent from my SM-F711B using Tapatalk
The rules might need to be, look how far RU has taken it, any high shot will result in a card, most often red, its a shock to the system designed to force a change in tackling technique. The number of high shots we see is more than what it shpuld be. We are better with it than we were 20 years ago, but i still think there is more we can do.
All types of dementia are cruel and the affected players deserve our sympathy.
It’s going over ground already covered on here but is protection from head shots enough? A lot of on the field concussions are suffered by defenders, sometimes because of bad tackling technique, sometimes because of accidents, sometimes because of “friendly fire” and sometimes by an aggressive use of the forearms/elbows by attacking players. Add to that concussions caused by jolting of the head or more severe impacts with the turf and it becomes apparent that it’s very difficult to protect against it.
Spot on Buddy. It's crazy and as usual as you say, it's all about lawyers and solicitors making money. It's why things never really change politically, since many of those who make the laws are themselves lawyers, it's cyclic! As far as blaming the game for their horrendous conditions, whilst of course I sympathise for anyone suffering from such a condition, I can't see how suing the sport is right. What next? Boxers suing their governing bodies? The NFL? Rugby Union?
I just find the litigious approach to this subject to be pathetic especially when the complaints are levelled against the RFL for events that occurred before causal links between head trauma and dementia had been established. If this case gains ground, I can see players who were concussed because of high shots and have now developed signs of dementia taking legal action against those who tackled them illegally.
The RFL should have a defence if your first sentence is correct. The risk needs to have been reasonably foreseeable under the law of England and Wales.
P.S. I think it would be pretty difficult for anyone to establish a case against a player because of an individual tackle unless it resulted in some dramatic injury that could be reasonably linked to the dementia or other medical problem.
Just broke a major vow and actually read a daily mail article.
This bit is interesting
The only recognition of the dangers of concussion Goulding received during a playing career that began at Wigan in 1990 and finished with a player-coaching stint at Rochdale 15 years later was a pre-season baseline cognitive assessment which, he claims, was completely unsupervised, thus allowing the players to cheat and making a mockery of the entire process.
'We had the test to do on the computer at the start of the season to set our template for the year, which you'd come back to if you had a head injury, but players cheated all the time,' he says.
'You had to come back and do it if you were injured and beat your previous time.
'But we'd give each other our passwords and do it for each other all the time. There was no one overseeing the process so you'd have people doing it for their mate who was injured.
So the RFL recognised the potential of the risk and set up a protocol to mitigate the risk, and players allegedly manipulated the results of the protocol, and now a player who allegedly manipulated the results of that protocol is suffering in later life.
The RFL put the protocol in place. The fact that some players allegedly didn’t take it seriously isn’t the RFL’s fault, they were all (allegedly) responsible adults.
It's the way it's going. Rugby will end up as tag sevens and heading will be banned from football you mark my words.
Deepest sympathy for Bobbie and any other players diagnosed with this. I didn't see Murphy play but if I was picking my all time team I'd have Goulding at scrum half.
Drag the court case out and he'll forget all about it? (sorry Bobby you was my favorite player)
It is tough to call.
I guess the question is did the game know more about these injuries and not act at the time?
If they did then they would be liable, but if they only know after the fact then you can't be liable for an unknown at the time.
However, going forward are players going to have to sign legal wavers to play the game?
Stating they know the risks and accept that the game is limited in the action it can take to protect those players from future illness and injury.
I wonder if Goulding’s self-confessed heavy drug use and alcoholism contributed in any way to his current state?
Can't stop the spirits when they need you.
This life is more than just a read through.
My concern is that this isn't from concussion. Look at football. That was the initial thought until thinking moved on to the fact that repeated minor trauma dozens of times a week from heading the ball was the much more likely reason.
My fear for the future is that countless players subjected to the much tougher weekly round of dozens of jolts to the head than the game once provided, due to the intensity of collision, is going to significantly increase the number of such cases.
I don't think the game as it stood could be blamed for any of this. The knowledge wasn't there at the time, that these things had long term repercussions. However, it's vital now that proper research is conducted and that all prospective young players are educated accordingly. This isn't going to be swept under the carpet and the game is going to have to have a very long look at the route it has been going down.
THIS YEAR LENDING SUPPORT TO:- St. Helens RLFC, Manchester City, Celtic, Alemannia Aachen, Steps 1 to 6 Non-League Football
Going off what Ade Gardener said a few months ago in his podcasts clubs knew about these injuries but wanted players available for the next game, also some players hiding symptoms so they could play, Jammer springs to mind on that one.
Its going to be very difficult to adjust our game, some legal hard tackles like the ones Knowles executes often risk a whip lash injury because of the sudden impact. We perhaps may see more players going off with HIA's and the assessments protocol a bit more stricter and the pressures will be more on the club doctor. You could also require HIA's for all the players after the game for players that have not been picked up, you can play with physically niggly injuries but what trauma's inside the skull is completely difficult.
Most players wear GPS units in the back of their shirts maybe they can develop them to show high impact kinetic energy levels above the norm and assess the implications later.
For the time being, direct contact with the head should be a red card endorsed by a video ref but you would need a video ref for every non televised Superleague and Championship game. Thats going to take a long time to put in place.
I get it wouldn't mitigate all head injuries, but is there not also a responsibility in regards to wearing head guards.
RU and AFL are taking part in studies using 'smart gumshields' which will do things like that to assess impacts and movement of the head etc.
I think some sports were talking about moving to 14 day enforced downtime after concussion too. Isn't it seven days in RL, so you could get concussed Friday and play the next Saturday? That seems like a quick win tbh.
I think it's worth looking at how rule changes might reduce the force of impacts too - e.g. what's this difference in impact between a 10m defensive line and a 5m one. Plus things like limiting contact in training like they've done in RU (also football with heading). It's a difficult balance sometimes though as teaching good tackling technique can help reduce risk but you cant really do that without actually practicing it.
All this stuff has been coming for a while but it's perhaps not surprising to see RL being behind the curve.
Some would say he was already encountering 'sporadic neural malfunction' before even joining us.
As others have said, if the RFL were already making reasonable efforts to implement best practice at that time (and can demonstrate that they continue to do so, within the boundaries of the game having a particular nature, which involves collision), then it's extremely unlikely any attempt to sue them would succeed.