www.swapmeetdave.com/Humor/C-Enigma.gif

www.swapmeetdave.com/Humor/C-Enigma.gif

Which their natural instincts will be telling them not to share.

It won't be the RFL sued it will be individual clubs or even coaches. There's been the rule about players with signs of concussion not being allowed to play for 2 weeks and the rule change this year with on field assessment and players not being allowed back. As medical evidence has become more accepted on the issue then the RFL have adapted. Maybe not particularly quickly, but certainly more than other sports.

There's more of an issue with clubs and coaches making a player return to the field or playing with signs of concussion, possibly even fudging results to allow it. That's not the RFL

I think the Wane video may well end up getting Flower off the hook. The way that he sent out his players, means that the vicarious liability lies firmly with the club, and not the individual players, who were only doing what the club encouraged them to do.

very handy for a solicitor as the club (and chairman) have alot more money then the player in question

You may well think that. However, throwing around terms such as vicarious liabilitry won't save your post from being anything other than mere opinion that is quite nonsensical in legal (or indeed any) terms.

By the way, in my opinion; based on some actual, though by no means expert (in this context); legal knowledge; Lance won't be getting anywhere near court against anyone - indeed I don't think he has any intention of doing so - which no doubt will be a disappointment to all the popcorn crunchers desperately trying to illustrate how it would be a fait accompli.

I'm rather puzzled by Saints fans logic here. Repetitive injury doesn't lead to concussive injury in the same way. Effects, by LH own statement happened after he started playing again, thus theres a causality linkage being made purely on correlation. Where is the evidence to support this link?

Also, the NFL, Boxing and Football where the same injury exists haven't been sued into nothingness.

The FoI Act applies only to public authorities defined in the Act; sports clubs and the RFL are not public authorities, so the Act does not apply.

The DPA does very much apply, however. Assuming the performance data are not anonymised each player has the right to access his own data through making a subject access request and then to do with those data what he will. The clubs have no way to prevent such access within the law, so any player minded to analyse his data to see if a case can be made can do just that.

I don't see that. Unless Wane or the Wigan club has specifically instructed him to carry out an on-field assault with intention it's going to be very hard for the club to be held liable i.e. telling players to be aggressive is within the rules of the game. If a player breaks that rule there may be repercussions for the club under RL rules but under civil or criminal law? I don't think there's much to go on without a direct instruction as evidence e.g. if a fight breaks out and somebody is killed in a melee I doubt a club would be held financially responsible for any compensation to the deceased's family.



Well, the NFL case is still in process so you can't say anything with conviction about what will happen there, although I suspect it will result in a big settlement rather than go to court. As for boxing, it's completely different. It is an accepted term and condition of the sport that being hit unconscious is a likely outcome for participants. Whilst that is partly true with RL, the sport has rules and regulations to prevent such attacks (intentional or not). The sport has to show a duty of care if it becomes aware of danger resulting from play (intentional or not). What that means for long-term accumulations of concussions I don't know but it is clearly different to boxing i.e. whilst there is a risk of concussion in RL it is not an accepted outcome of the normal process of playing the game.

I think it goes back a lot further than that, Wigan always seem to attract the "dark side"of the game to tip them over the line, if you remember Wigan signed the prop Smith knowing that he could,t get a gig in NRL because of his knees in the shoulder technique which resulted in lots of suspensions. So he pops over to the Wigan camp and sure enough puts young Stankevitch out of the game. They had a barren period in Superleague so up pops an Oz coach with a nasty side of tackling techniques to cause injury and took delight in putting up "car crash" pictures in the corridor of the training ground.
Then we have Wane with his anti anger management style which has most probably again contributed to a player having to retire from the game. The club encourage the "thugby" style, fortunately most clubs have not followed this philosophy to the same detail.

I think the terms we are looking for to describe Wigan are "The classlessness of desperation". That's what happened in the Grand Final.

All these sports are aware of this problem to some lesser of greater degree and have repeatedly blocked, hampered, stalled further investigation and litigation.

However, the NFL is a special case in that solid post-mortem data has found a "back door" through the NFL information firewall and into the hands of scientists. From this data it has been possible to establish a clear and unequivocal link between practicing the sport and brain injury.

As things stand the NFL - as we know it - is seriously threatened by a wave of class action lawsuits the costs of which are dizzying.

Moreover, even though similarly comprehensive data isn't available in relation to football and boxing it is now no longer possible for both to continue stonewalling official investigations indefinitely. One only need think of fighters such as Ali and Evander Holyfield to know boxing - AS WE KNOW IT - is living on borrowed time. Insofar as football is concerned, there have already been small-scale studies linking heading the ball repeatedly to brain damage. FIFA can only play the role of King Canute for so long.

I think football is very insignificant compared to "proper contact" sports, competing with a high ball perhaps. Think we can all remember the old rain sodden laced leather ball, now that was a concern when your neck went numb when the technique was wrong.

Again - the NFL studies show it's less an issue of force than FREQUENCY.

Given the number of headers a footballer makes in his career I suspect this could be a massive issue.

All you have to do is look at the collisions of either sport and it doesn't take a genius to work out that the speed and force of the collisions will have some sort of effect. It's not like the nfl are hiding this fact from the players, they choose to play the game knowing the force of collisions.

Don't mix up the normal collisions that go with the game, with a single act of thuggishness that ends a players career. This is a very different case

Danny Jones: Concussion first suspected before he collapsed www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-league/32584463

Danny Jones: Concussion first suspected before he collapsed www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-league/32584463

Actually, it IS like the NFL is hiding this fact.

Outside the US though I think a court is likely to take into account the generally physical nature of a sport in terms of assessing risk (outside the US I think this would end up in court - in the US the main aim of the claimants will probably be an out of court settlement). An RL player - just like a boxer - could not sensibly claim that they thought they were playing a sport that had no potentially serious physical risks associated with it. I can't imagine a UK court not taking that into serious account.

I think all the RFL/NRL have to do is what they have - stop the OTT stuff (particularly shoulder charges) and crack down on players with concussion returning to play. The problem with the shoulder charge in RL was that head shots were positively encouraged - no penalty, no suspension and even heaps of praise for hits which clearly hit opponents in the head.

BTW I think boxing isn't threatened at all. There's simply too much money at the top end for it to stop.

It'll certainly get to the US courts. And the NFL will likely be forced to concede in spades. At that point the starting pistol is fired. You'd think the British legal system would be an impermeable membrane to such claims (what this suggests about the merits of the British legal system is another question entirely). I equate the ever-expanding scope of liability claims to rain falling on a house. Even though quality of materials and methods of construction ostensibly preclude even the possibility of water getting inside, good ol' H20 will patiently go about its business of testing each and every seal in a dogged war of attrition until one of them fails. It could be tomorrow. It could be in twenty years. Eventually a gutter becomes blocked with leaves, a torrent of water gushes onto the second floor brickwork and three weeks later you've got damp in the bedroom.



I don't think that will be enough. Remember, one of the most shocking results of these studies is that tests carried out on kids found that a frightening number showed early symptoms of brain damage. These weren't the result of vicious head shots but rather an accumulation of thousands of small bangs and knocks picked up in everyday rough-and-tumble. Worse still - given that nearly 98% of players tested in one study manifested symptoms you can't really fall back on the "bad luck" argument. It's a near certainty that playing NFL will give you brain damage of some description. That's a very tough position to defend.



Don't let the silly money thrown at that joke of a fight between Mayweather and Pacquiao fool you. Boxing through wholesale corruption and criminal mismanagement is practically on its knees as a professional sport and of all those listed it is undoubtedly in the weakest position to survive intact from any kind of legal challenge.

Boxing on its knees? You taking the pi**. Boxing just had the biggest fight of the decade and possibly all time. British boxing just had its biggest fight of all time in froch v groves 2.

British boxing is as good as its been for many years. Kell brook is world champion alongside Carl Froch, Scott Quigg Andy lee , McDonnell, and Carl Frampton. We have groves, Degale, Paul smith, kal yafai, tyson fury, ricky burns, kevin Mitchell all in world title fights this year. Paul smith who part of the smith brothers has a title against pound for pound one the best boxers about in Andre Ward. Amir Khan at welterwieght looks truly world class and looks set for mid September fight with floyd "money" mayweather. Moving up to 147lbs has been great move for Khan. Our own Martin murray will be looking to bounce back from his world title shot with GGG who is the deadliest puncher in world boxing.

The yanks have just had their first heavyweight champ in ten years with wilder sweeping thru the ranks with 32 fights and 32 wins and 31 by ko.

The is some massive massive fights to me made. Boxing is booming over the last two years and British boxing has some big fights that can be made.

Groves v Degale
Frampton v Quigg
Price v Joshua.
Khan v brook
Murray v Andy lee
Callum smith v rocky fielding
St Pete v mugwamp

Oh for god's sake shut up you silly fool. I won't even begin to go into the decline in viewing figures over the last ten years, the paucity of talent at heavyweight, the terminal decline of American boxing at both professional and amateur levels, the proliferation of ABC belts, meaningless titles, ridiculously over-protected fighters who'd rather preserve their unbeaten records against a succession of tin cans than take on quality opposition, the elevation of "fitness conditioners" over (quality) ex-pros as cornermen (see Adam Booth and David Haye), the depressing slide in skills this has resulted in (I can't remember the last fighter I saw who possessed a quality jab and knew how to use it), atrocious undercards, bad fight timing (Mayweather vs Pacquiao came SEVEN YEARS TOO LATE) - all of which has encouraged long-term fans to drift away from the sport whilst kids are far more attracted to better promoted (if entirely crap) "sports" such as UFC etc. etc.

I like Carl Froch. He's a true warrior and one of the few fighters in boxing who will genuinely take on all-comers. But as a fighter he's so technically flawed one might wonder whether he's boxing at all. His "defence" consists of his chin. That's it. His "attack" is so telegraphed his opponent could easily exit the ring for a pee and make it back between the moment Carl decides to throw a punch and the time that it lands.

The "biggest fight of the decade" was nothing short of a joke. To sum up - Mayweather cynically waited until Pacquiao's skills had all but gone before pouncing. In the ring Manny looked a SHOT FIGHTER from the first minute. You can't even begin to compare him to the guy who blasted Marco Antonio Barrera into retirement. To be honest I didn't think much of Mayweather, either. As usual he threw just enough scoring punches to steal the rounds. Like Manny he's a long, long way from his prime. And as for the undercard ...



Highly overrated vs Highly unprofessional. Doesn't interest me.



I like Frampton. I don't rate Quigg at all.



PRICE??? You're kidding me. I hope Joshua works out but I can't say that I'm all that enamoured with his fighting style. How anyone so young can be so flat-footed I don't know.



Khan is as thick as a brick and has lost at least two fights because of it. Indeed, his stupidity irreparably damaged his own career picking some truly atrocious cornermen who taught him terrible habits. This is a guy who figured it was a good idea to hire a coach who seriously believed Breidis Prescott was a good match-up for a young kid with a suspect chin still learning the ropes.

Kell Brook is a throwback to the bad old days of British fighters hamstrung by British promoters who seek to squeeze ever last drop of money out of the paying audience before moving up to the next level. He should have been fighting at this level FOUR YEARS AGO.



Is this fight supposed to capture the imagination of viewers or lobotomise them?



Stick to watching Rocky, champ.

If Hohaia sues anyone, I'd imagine it would be Flower himself. If he claims that punch caused the damage how exactly could he sue Wigan (or the RFL) for Flower's moment of lunacy? Wane ranting before another game is hardly evidence of a plan to punch an unconscious man on the floor.

If OTOH he sues on the basis of repetitive issues, then Flower would be off the hook, but I Hohaiha would have a hard time convincing a court of negligence on the part of the game itself, which I personally think has/is reacting quite well to the issue (especially given its very limited resources compared to the NFL). Banning the shoulder charge to the head caused no end of wailing amongst fans, but IMO was a huge positive for the game generally.

As an aside I also suspect you could dig up a fair amount of footage of Lance himself hitting players around the head (mainly accidentally but there isn't a long-serving player around who hasn't done it quite often). No idea what that would mean if went to court though.

I'm not sure why you are conflating Lance Hohaia's situation with the systemic predicament all collision sports will likely face at some in the future - especially since neither the thread title nor the initial post makes any mention of Lance Hohaia.

Watching rocky lol

I'm massive fight fan. I've been more boxing matches than you've had hot dinners.

When was the last time you went a fight? I've just been Vegas for thst small fight too.

I go every big fight I can get tickets too. You don't even know boxers unless they been on tv lol

You taking up the charity fight idea Sado mentioned ?