Australia’s two rugby codes should keep a close eye on concussion policies to avoid a lawsuit similar to the NFL’s recent head injury case.
Over 4,500 players, many of whom suffer from conditions like Lou Gehrig’s disease, filed lawsuits against the NFL after growing tired of medical bills and the crippling side effects that brain injuries can cause.
The NFL has agreed to pay a $765 million settlement as compensation for the burden placed on thousands of retired players and their families, who sued the league for debilitating brain damage.
These lawsuits accused the NFL of promoting the violence of the sport, ignoring the health risks and failing to inform players of the long-term health ramifications of repeated concussions.
Over the years we have seen a number of NFL players succumb to depression and suicide, resulting in the finger being pointed at the pinnacle of American sport.
Much like the NFL, rugby league and union in Australia tend to play their cards close to their chest when it comes to head injuries.
It’s probably because they have a bad hand.
After the debacles which saw Wallabies flanker George Smith return to the field just five minutes after being knocked senseless, and the NRL’s Dylan Farrell – who couldn’t even get off the field for Souths earlier this year – there is cause for concern.
So far, the rugby codes have been playing Russian roulette when it comes to concussions. It’s only a matter of time before brain injuries become a common problem for retired players.
Although the NFL has seen the settlement as a win for both parties, it certainly won’t be the last medical scare over the game’s safety.
The agreement has resulted in the NFL paying $675 million to a compensation fund, $75 million for medical examinations and another $10 million towards research.
Although players in the NFL tend to tackle more with their heads than they do with their shoulders, it seems that not even Tatafu Polota-Nau’s bed of hair, let alone a helmet, can prevent a concussion these days.
Clubs need to keep tabs on ex-players to cover themselves and provide a more conservative set of short-term protocols to prevent mums from dragging their kids away from rugby and into soccer.
Players compete at their own risk and often bully the medical staff to stay on the pitch, but there is no guarantee that they won’t shift the blame to someone else when their brains grow old.
The ARU can bounce back from defeat and the NRL can handle the peptide crisis, but you can’t prepare for the future without changing the present.
The concussion crisis is a ticking time bomb for Australian rugby. The first step to solving the problem is realising there is one.
click here now
Guest
Is it actually possible to get off kidney dialysis? Australia medical expert tells you it actually is.
Opheliacrutchmore
Guest
It doesn't work like that. If the owners of the game can see a risk, ie brain injury, getting the players to sign a contract to the effect that they may get brain injury does not abrogate their responsibility in reducing the perceived risk.
Ian Whitchurch
Guest
Anyone interested in this issue really should read this http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/8218700/neuropathologist-dr-ann-mckee-accused-killing-football-be-sport-only-hope
Ian Whitchurch
Guest
The flip side of that is that while people wont sue you, the government may put you in jail.
Garth
Guest
Tiddlywinks can be dangerous, you know. You could take an eye out.
Garth
Guest
It's covered by a compulsory accident insurance (ACC), though the current bunch of elected morons wans to privatise it. It's not perfect, but it works and it keeps interference by lawyers to a minimum. And yes, sporting injuries are covered.
Two Eyed Cyclop
Roar Guru
I fear for the future of the sport, the only parallel I can draw is making children's playgrounds completely safe. It can be done but would the kids want to use them? Or would they head for the nearest tree. Well I reckon best next thing in Oz sport is a 3rd tier regional tiddlywinks championship, heard it here first folks.
Dmak
Guest
Yes New Zealand has very different laws when it comes suing for negligence. There was a episode of Four Corners investigating the Adventure Tourism Industry. They discovered that If are injured in New Zealand you cannot sue but all your Medical Bills will be paid for by the New Zealand Government. I am assuming that this would also apply to injuries that occurred while playing a sport.
Garth
Guest
Forunately, that scenario is almost impossible on this side of the Tasman. The ambulance chasers tend to starve over here.
Garth
Guest
I didn't say it was totally ignored, just that most of them tend to over look some of the "less" physical sports when railing against the dangers. I used to play as a kid and I nearly always had a headache after a game. Main reason I stop playing in my teens actually.
Chris of Vic
Roar Pro
Anecdotally, I have an uncle who played soccer at a high level in Wales as a young man in the late '40s and early '50's. You don't have to be Einstein to work out what happens when a waterlogged leather ball connects with to your scone at speed. As a result he suffered from terrible migraines and other head problems for the rest of his life post soccer.
Glenn Innes
Guest
We live in a very litigious society full of ambulance chasing law firms - what has happened in the States will certainly not have gone unnoticed eventually somebody will sue one of the football codes and if they win the floodgates will open.
Johnno
Guest
I'd be opening to banning headers at junior level in soccer. But for adult pro level, no way headers are part of the sport. Like the shoulder charge should be brought back to rugby league at an adult level. These are consenting adults who sign contracts, as long as they are told the risks no problem. Do we ban building sites and builders,carpernters,electricicians,plumbers, who know the OH and S, hazards of working with industrial chemicals, no. Do they sure, if they are told of the dangers of working on a building site, or that specific building site, no. So same with sports, as long as you are told of the potential risks, then play on, no one is forcing these players to play at the elite level. rugby at the elite level went soft banning rucking, I hope it doesn't water the game down more. There is still some fire in rugby, eg like in Brisbane last week, and Mendoza, I hope it stays.
Magnus
Guest
http://www.mirror.co.uk/lifestyle/health/footballers-can-suffer-brain-damage-1946495
Minz
Guest
Well, there are Aussie Rules players with post-career issues with brain injuries - is rugby union/league lower contact than Aussie Rules? 'Cos that's what I'm hearing from you.
MrT
Guest
Any chance this never becomes an ARU problem - as long as they are implementing IRB standards...?
Ian Whitchurch
Guest
Garth, It hasnt been ignored. For example, look at this http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21811187
mania
Guest
wow thats an awesome point that i never ever considered Garth. and so true. soccer balls arent soft and headering one is equivalent to getting a jab in the head. my sons in his 2nd year of football and i never considered headers. actually on that evidence he's safer playing rugby league.
Garth
Guest
As I have mentioned on other posts, most of the Anti- brigade choose to overlook studies on the long term implications that playing soccer/football has of the players health and mental well-being. Has anyone headed a soccer ball? they're hard right? and a slightly flat one is worse. Now, think on what will happen to a player's brain if he continues to play soccer, heading the ball 3 -4 times a game, for years. Has anyone seen a "punch-drunk" boxer? Because studies in England claim that repeated "mini-concussions" caused by heading a soccer ball have a cumulative effect, similar to that seen in boxing. So, if rugby, league, AFL & boxing are "bad" why do they ignore soccer?
le mec
Guest
I don't think you understand the seriousness of the concussion problem in the NFL. The issue at hand was: did the NFL know that concussions led to long term brain damage, yet sat on the evidence and did nothing about it? That is sheer negligence. Read up on the recent suicides of Junior Seau and Dave Duerson among others. I actually thought the NFL settlement would actually end up being in the billions of dollars, so this amount of settling with the retired players association will end up being good for the NFL. So sure maybe you can set a policy on future litigation, but what if existing or retired players in AFL, NRL or Union find out that their leagues knew that concussions were a problem for years, yet did nothing? That's what the leagues will have to address by with mandatory concussion policies. More interesting for the long term health of those 3 sports is that many parents have already heard about the concussion problem and aren't allowing their kids to play, at least until they get older. Concussion policies MUST be implemented at the youth level and not just treated with the usual "just got his bell rung". "She'll be right" doesn't work with brain injuries.