Rugby faces a dementia “epidemic” among retired professionals without serious reform of the game, the lawyer leading an action against the sport’s authorities has warned.
Richard Boardman, who is representing an initial group of seven players including 2003 England World Cup winner Steve Thompson, says doing nothing is not an option.
Thompson, 42, has been diagnosed with early onset dementia and says he has no recollection of his part in England’s glorious campaign in Australia 17 years ago.
Boardman says that, regardless of the outcome of the planned legal action against World Rugby, the Rugby Football Union and the Welsh Rugby Union, immediate reform is required to prevent more players suffering like Thompson.
He said: “We believe up to 50 per cent of former professional rugby players could end up with neurological complications in retirement.
“That’s an epidemic, and whether you believe the governing bodies and World Rugby are liable or not, something has to be done to improve the game going forward.
“We can’t do trial by media, so now we’ve announced the litigation we’ve got to take a step back.
“But immediate changes need to be made to the game to protect the current generation and future players.
“The collisions are just as big now, the speed of the game, the workload, and there’s nothing to suggest what’s happened to Steve and Alix (Popham) and Michael (Lipman) won’t happen to current and future generations.”
Like Thompson, former Wales No.8 Popham and ex-England international Lipman are in their early 40s and suffering from early onset dementia and probable chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE).
Boardman said the initial group could increase to 10 or 11 former players in total later this week or early next week, and that he is working with a group of 110 ex-players overall, ranging in age from their 20s to their 50s.
The NFL reached a settlement worth over half a billion pounds with players who had suffered brain injuries and, while Boardman could not put precise figures on it, he said that in cases of early onset dementia, the care costs were considerable.
“We’ve got a lot of guys in their early 40s, and by the time they get into their 50s a lot of them will be unable to work and will require a lot of healthcare,” he said.
“So the quantum for such claims will be considerable, certainly in the seven figures.”
TC
Roar Rookie
Tooly It will be interesting if the Unions look into ex players Excess Drinking as contributing to their Health Issues
If Union is going to die from this sort of thing then League has a far more limited shelf life as they allow full head contact....
Lorry
Guest
The love of litigation is oh so American!
scrum
Roar Rookie
Well I disagree with your premise re forwards v backs. The lawyer clearly stated that training was a large part of their case. Also the high impact of scrum engagement has been eliminated. And I would think forwards have a greater degree of high impacts during game time than backs. Also having seen players pole axed from high tackles it is hardly irrelevant that the focus is on reducing tackle height. I expect WR will introduce more safety Laws In the future- to the horror of some saying the game has turned “soft”.
elvis
Roar Rookie
The cynic in me the wonders where this dementia epidemic was when the game was amateur.
kent
Guest
we've known for how many years that boxing and getting hit in the head over and over can cause brain injury, boxers know it, the general public knows it, and so should rugby players. It is their choice to play sport, no one makes them, if they were concerned about injuries maybe they should have played soccer or taken up golf instead
Rugbyrah
Guest
A rugby team is comprised mostly of forwards 8 and 7 backs. It is a forwards dominant game in regards of numbers, reserves, set piece and strategy. Bigger players = bigger collisions. If rugby reduced the game to an even balance of fowards and backs, we can reduce injuries and re sets in scrums and open up more attacking opportunities rather than the current defence rewarded games. If we went for 7 fowards, we can reduce srums to just 6, reducing time for scrums and creating more opportunities for attack. This proposal would have 6 in the scrum and 1 forward join the backline. During line outs, all 7 forwards can participate. The game needs to speed up and have more opportunities for attack. A faster game would lead to more lean fowards and lighter forwards.
AndyS
Guest
But about as relevant to the class action as James Hardie having insisted on protective hardhats and safety goggles when defending their mesothelioma cases. A good move perhaps, but irrelevant and nowhere near enough to address the real issue. If it was about tackle height at all, the lead litigant would have been a centre or back than a forward.
kent
Guest
having listened to Paul Kent on NRL360, it appears as though if enough time passes after a concussion, that there is less likely of post concussion / repeated concussions. Presume Doctors are learning more about it each year. Doesn't the Nevada State Athletic Commission ban MMA fighters for 3 - 6 months or more from contact training & fighting if there was a head injury? If so - then the blame is with the players "put me back in coach" , the coaches "get back in there, the team needs you" or the Doctors who diagnosed them on the field? Sir Clive had better ship all of his money offshore where it can't be accessed.
scrum
Roar Rookie
A couple of issues. Thomson played in an era prior to the current scrum engagement where most of the impact has been taken out of the engagement. Also the lawyer involved has highlighted many of the problems have been caused at training and players obviously spend a lot more time training than playing. Rugby is a high impact sport- the breakdown needs to be addressed as well but tackle height combined with technique is critical. I doubt it is possible to eliminate the risk of brain damage but certainly lowering tackle height is critical
AndyS
Guest
So Steve Thompson, a big fast ball carrier was he, that attracted a lot of high shots from tacklers? Must have been, to be the kind of player having problems now. Oh, he was a hooker. So how does one of them pick up lots of low grade concussions? And what is World Rugby doing about that, because I don't think just messing around with tackle height is going to fly as addressing the problem. Watch these, count the head contacts, then tell me how many you think might have attracted some (any) sort of sanction. https://youtube.com/watch?v=3Olf9Av8oAA https://youtube.com/watch?v=LJMpAX95JaU Or this as an instructional aid... https://youtube.com/watch?v=do3299ZEIao World Rugby hasn't even started to address the issue that is actually going to be tested in law. And it is only going to become a bigger problem as everyone tries to make the game faster and more open.
scrum
Roar Rookie
Head injuries to the tackler are primarily due to poor execution and technique especially with head position. The tackler has far more control of the outcome than the ball carrier. It is clearly safer to get the tackle height down.
AndyS
Guest
Rick's observation was that the largest portion of head knocks is to the tackler. Dropping his tackle height is not going to change that...if anything, it puts the tackler in more danger of contacting a hip or knee. Especially if the tackled player shifts such things after the tackler has committed himself. And that was my observation; that if they are going to hold the tackler responsible for anything he does that might contribute to a high contact on a tackled player, then they also need to hold the tackled player responsible for anything he in turn does that contributes to a high contact on the tackler. They've made a small start, with a couple of fends inconsistently penalised during the world cup. But they have much more to do, especially in the area of tackled players dropping their shoulders into contact. But if they are going to be consistent, it will really need to apply to anything the ball carrier does after the tackle has been initiated that contributes to high contact on the tackler. They have decided that the contact is penalisable despite causation, holding the tackling players responsible even if the tackled player ducks/falls or moves his shoulder such that the tackle rides up. So the same logic will need to apply in reverse.
Gloria
Roar Rookie
The overreaction is carding players for any ‘contact’ with the head whatsoever. It is impact that causes damage, not contact. There will always be some accidental and consequential contact in this sport. That should be a penalty only, not a card.
Gloria
Roar Rookie
Yes, Peter, I agree. Sports bodies have an obligation to minimise and warn of known risks. The law is a balancing act between protecting players and allowing consent. It is similar to when a doctor does a dangerous operation. The doctor must warn the patient of the risks involved and get informed consent. If the league has rules to protect players and then doesn’t apply them properly they are not getting consent because the players only consent to play with the rules fully enforced and observed. Or, if the league says their protections are sufficient and in reality they are not, again you do not have informed consent. I think rugby league will be hit hard by future litigation. Rugby Union is in a far better position because it has a far more protective approach.
Gloria
Roar Rookie
It’s about consent to known risks that exist when the sport is played/conducted within the rules. Boxing has obvious known risks for head trauma. If boxers want to box knowing these risks they can. And nobody can get sued for it, provided the rules are clear, known, complied with, enforced and consented to. In rugby, the risk of liability is created by illegal play. Legal play is not going to give a cause of action as there is consent to those risks by those playing.
Wally James
Roar Guru
Cheers Purdo. I have not looked at it to be quoted as authority for sometime. However my recollection is that originally playing the game was your tacit consent to what happened to you. Then there was a Welsh decision in about the 50s which said you don’t consent to acts perpetrated on you which are against the laws. A bloke had been either punched or kicked in that instance. As far as I know that still applies civilly. Criminal matters are a completely different thing. I have been in a game where a bloke was convicted of grievous bodily harm after a punch. I know of another game, in the 90s where one poor colts player died from a punch. The puncher was charged with manslaughter. Not sure of the result. The more players and spectators get used to the new laws the easier it becomes. The Cavalry charge was outlawed. You never see it now. Same with hacking.
Purdo
Roar Rookie
PK I agree with you about Swinton's tackle - it wasn't that egregious, as for instance a punch or tackle well off the ball might be.
PeterK
Roar Guru
There have been quite a few cases of players suing for damages in league for illegal play that has hurt them. They sue both the opposing player and the club. I don't know why criminal charges are not brought up for the most egregious assaults though. (headhighs like Swintons would not be criminal IMO). https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-07-24/rugby-league-player-liam-cullen-sues-over-alleged-high-tackle/8738544 https://theconversation.com/no-other-recourse-but-to-sue-the-implications-of-alex-mckinnons-lawsuit-against-the-nrl-70590
kent
Guest
as sad as this is, curious as to why rugby league isn't in a worse position with potential dementia issues considering it's a sport with more stiff arm and head high tackles than rugby. Can a sport governing body be sued when it was the players choice to play a particular style of rugby? Not everyone charges into the forwards like a bull at the gate.