[2021 Six Nations] Ireland vs France (14/02/21)

[Vieux Talonneur]

Then potentially it could lead to no employment by teams, but they'll move to a contracted status like in business. That could mitigate a lot of legal risk (no expert as to whether that would hold water)

Yeah, I work for a business that's about a third staff (including me) and two thirds self employed contractors. There are massive differences between us but whether contractors are feasible in rugby I have no idea (I'm working on the assumption that players are directly employed but would be interested to know if that's not the case).

There are some key differences. If, for example, you were a builder and your employer had given you all the appropriate training and guidelines and you ignored them then that is your choice. However, in rugby players are selected to play. Therefore even if they have informed the player of the risk and he still wants to play, by choosing that player, they are choosing to put him at risk when they know he could be vulnerable.

It's a small difference, but could be crucial in a court of law.

In our hypothetical example North would be required to give and receive hits as part of his normal duties. I think that any employer that put an employee with a known vulnerability in jeopardy by executing duties normally would be skating on very thin ice.

I think that's different to your builder where the employer has acted properly and it's clearly the individual's fault for going off piste. But even then supervision and controls are likely to be called in to question - how did the employer ensure that the individual was complying with agreed standards? The only answer I know in any of this is that the only winners, as ever, would be the lawyers.

 

[Reiser99]

In our hypothetical example North would be required to give and receive hits as part of his normal duties. I think that any employer that put an employee with a known vulnerability in jeopardy by executing duties normally would be skating on very thin ice.

I think that's different to your builder where the employer has acted properly and it's clearly the individual's fault for going off piste. But even then supervision and controls are likely to be called in to question - how did the employer ensure that the individual was complying with agreed standards? The only answer I know in any of this is that the only winners, as ever, would be the lawyers.

True, though in my example I'm assuming the building company does regular checks etc...and it would be shown that it was clearly the employee ignoring the rules, but I get the point. Thinking about it, a similar example might be asking someone to do building job, knowing they had an injury that could be made worse by the job. Again My main point is that unlike in other jobs where the employer doesn't have to consistently check on an employees health, here the IRU know Sexton's medical history and if they allow him to be picked then it opens them up as responsible, even if he wanted to play too.

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

I'm no lawyer, but employment status will be part of this. North will be employed by Ospreys (and presumably effectively by the WRU while on national duty). Employers have an overriding duty of care; if, say, Os / WRU were told that North was one blow away from lasting damage, they let him play and (God forbid) he took that blow then I suspect North's lawyers would have a field day regardless of any indemnity in the original contract.

I guess that fighters and strongmen etc are much more likely to be self-employed or running their own personal businesses so may not have the recourse and protections that come from working for someone else. If so then they have more freedom to take on whatever risk they choose.

Pretty sure in the same circumstances a fighter wouldn't be allowed to fight by any commission. It's unlikely that Sexton or North are at that stage considering both unions have had players retire early in their careers due to concussion.

Without knowing the medical details or going back over university notes about an employer's DoC for dangerous positions I can't give too educated an answer but outside of extreme scenarios this will usually come down to the individual's discretion.

Yeah, I work for a business that's about a third staff (including me) and two thirds self employed contractors. There are massive differences between us but whether contractors are feasible in rugby I have no idea (I'm working on the assumption that players are directly employed but would be interested to know if that's not the case).



In our hypothetical example North would be required to give and receive hits as part of his normal duties. I think that any employer that put an employee with a known vulnerability in jeopardy by executing duties normally would be skating on very thin ice.

I think that's different to your builder where the employer has acted properly and it's clearly the individual's fault for going off piste. But even then supervision and controls are likely to be called in to question - how did the employer ensure that the individual was complying with agreed standards? The only answer I know in any of this is that the only winners, as ever, would be the lawyers.

There are reduced DoC's in jobs known to be dangerous. I can't tell you to what extent at the moment but it's considered by the law.

 

[big ginger 8]

Sexton 'shocked and saddened by inaccurate' view from French doctor https://the42.ie/5350732

 

[Groundhog]

He's right, its a highly inappropriate thing for a doctor to say.

 

[Which Tyler]

Releasing confidential information is really not on

 

[big ginger 8]

He's right, its a highly inappropriate thing for a doctor to say.

Yeah definitely.

Covid has highlighted how weird medical privacy is in sports. Obviously fans want to know how long a player will be out for but it's weird that we're given extra information like player X has a grade 3 sprain on his MCL. Meanwhile, at least in Ireland, player names aren't released for those who have a positive test.

I know in the NFL they have to waive certain HIPAA rights which had to be reworked due to Covid. At the start of the season the Stafford's were rightfully angry after having Matthew's name disclosed for testing positive before even having the chance to check if it was a false positive, which it was.

 

[AlRums]

Releasing confidential information is really not on

Is it "confidential" though? A fair number are suffered during publicly watched matches.

It's common for teams to announce HIA failures and concussion.

Sexton is clearly out if it, wobbly and unfit to play on TV after some of his bangs to the head

 

[Which Tyler]

Is it "confidential" though? A fair number are suffered during publicly watched matches.

It's common for teams to announce HIA failures and concussion.

Sexton is clearly out if it, wobbly and unfit to play on TV after some of his bangs to the head

Yes, it is confidential.
It doesn't matter if it's also public knowledge - they have a doctor/patient relationship, which comes with guaranteed confidentiality.

Dr Chermann is not some random medic discussing a non-patient, he's discussing the medical history, diagnosis and prognosis of a patient. It's absolutely a disciplinary offence, and he risks being struck off for it (if pressed)

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

Dr Barry O’Driscoll believes rugby’s concussion protocols not fit for purpose

‘We are damaging players’ brains again and again’ says former World Rugby medical adviser

www.irishtimes.com

That's worrying

 

[TRF_Olyy]

Dr Barry O’Driscoll believes rugby’s concussion protocols not fit for purpose

‘We are damaging players’ brains again and again’ says former World Rugby medical adviser

www.irishtimes.com

That's worrying

Cudmore was saying on twitter that neurologists reccomend 3 weeks rest minimum, whereas rugby's are 6 days

 

[Reiser99]

Dr Barry O’Driscoll believes rugby’s concussion protocols not fit for purpose

‘We are damaging players’ brains again and again’ says former World Rugby medical adviser

www.irishtimes.com

That's worrying

Very worrying. While we obviously don't know George North's medical history, many of us think it's ridiculous that he is still playing after so many knocks. The big issue again is not the immediate damage, but the long term damage and that won't be known until it's too late.

 

[munstermuffin]

Cudmore was saying on twitter that neurologists reccomend 3 weeks rest minimum, whereas rugby's are 6 days

Hadn't Cudmore a few serious issues with it too.

 

[Which Tyler]

Hadn't Cudmore a few serious issues with it too.

It's also misleading because Joe Bloggs typically doesn't get SCAT5 / PCSS tested, so just have a nuance-less blanket recommendation.
Rugby professionals, on the other hand, see a neurologist pretty-much every day of their return to play protocols.

Barry O'Driscoll thinks rugby's protocols aren't stringent enough - TBH, I agree with him; but think the bigger problem is still that they're not applied properly.
However, rugby's concussion protocols are in line with the best practice guidelines from the neurology community as a whole.


It's like the lawsuit case; I (and Dr O'Driscoll) may think that the rugby authorities acted too slowly and too shallowly when the lng-term risks of concussion became better known. But it's tough to hold a sports administrator to account for that when they're asking and following guidelines written by the experts in the field.

 

[Reiser99]

It's also misleading because Joe Bloggs doesn't get SCAT / PCSS tested, so just have a nuance-less blanket recommendation.
Rugby players, on the other hand, see a neurologist pretty-much every day of their return to play protocols.

Barry O'Driscoll thinks rugby's protocols aren't stringent enough - TBH, I agree with him; but think the bigger problem is still that they're not applied properly.
However, rugby's concussion protocols are in line with the best practice guidelines from the neurology community as a whole.

I remember Faf a couple of years ago was part of a head sandwich with him in the middle of 2 players. Can't remember exactly who went off, but faf who was in the middle definitely didn't.

 

[big ginger 8]

They used to have the blanket three weeks before bringing in the current system, no?

 

[jcahill1]

They used to have the blanket three weeks before bringing in the current system, no?

Yeah, it's mentioned in the article. I have to say I thought I remembered the return to play taking longer myself. Must have just convinced myself of it.

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

Chermann and RMC yesterday issued a clarification in which the neurologist said: "As regards Sexton we cannot say for certain that he has had 30 concussions. I should never have cited this figure without any explanation and I regret the wrong I have done to the player who was my patient and who I respect more than anyone.
"In my neurological experience of treating more than 1,500 athletes who have suffered concussion, the pivotal elements ruling out a return to action are: the fact of having suffered concussions close together in terms of time, that a previous concussion has taken time to be shaken off (several weeks), and the fact that the player is under 20 years old because there exists a serious risk of suffering an aftershock.
"To be clear if Sexton has not suffered from a concussion for a year, that he is asymptomatic after 48 hours, that the tests carried out are good and that the return-to-play protocol has been carried out properly, then there is nothing to stop him from playing against France."

Examiner (edit: why is it when you cut and paste sections from scaldy tabloids the entire ******* webpage is pasted?)

This is such a mess

 

[Reiser99]

There are two issues really, are concussion protocols enough (debatable) and that the doctor gave out confidential information to justify his point (wrong). Yes the doctor was in the wrong, but it shouldn't detract from discussing what is a serious issue in rugby.

 

[Which Tyler]

Chermann and RMC yesterday issued a clarification in which the neurologist said: "As regards Sexton we cannot say for certain that he has had 30 concussions. I should never have cited this figure without any explanation and I regret the wrong I have done to the player who was my patient and who I respect more than anyone.
"In my neurological experience of treating more than 1,500 athletes who have suffered concussion, the pivotal elements ruling out a return to action are: the fact of having suffered concussions close together in terms of time, that a previous concussion has taken time to be shaken off (several weeks), and the fact that the player is under 20 years old because there exists a serious risk of suffering an aftershock.
"To be clear if Sexton has not suffered from a concussion for a year, that he is asymptomatic after 48 hours, that the tests carried out are good and that the return-to-play protocol has been carried out properly, then there is nothing to stop him from playing against France."

Examiner (edit: why is it when you cut and paste sections from scaldy tabloids the entire ******* webpage is pasted?)

This is such a mess

Had he said that first time, there wouldn't have been any fuss.
He is absolutely allowed to give his professional opinion on things, he is absolutely not allowed to reveal confidential information about a patient (current or ex-).

Discussion of concussion risks, and individuals like Sexton or North is absolutely fair and valid; and it's absolutely fair and valid for various medical professionals to venture a (suitably guarded) opinion on them. Anyone with a doctor/patient relationship with the individuals need to keep their mouth shut, or make it clear that they're talking in general terms, not about specific instances or individuals. It's not hard, and a core part of training.

I remember Faf a couple of years ago was part of a head sandwich with him in the middle of 2 players. Can't remember exactly who went off, but faf who was in the middle definitely didn't.

One of many examples of the protocols not being applied correctly.
What's often "forgotten" is that HIA stands for Head Injury Assessment, not Concussion Confirmation Procedure. It's purpose is to assess any head injury for severity, concussion and any other damage.