Rugby League's Head Injury Crossroads

This week saw the news break that 10 former Rugby League players will be pursuing a group-action negligence claim against the RFL, the most high-profile of whom was former Great Britain international Bobbie Goulding, who revealed that he is suffering from early-onset dementia at the age of 49.

A disclaimer from the start. This piece is not going to be offering an opinion on the rights and wrongs of the litigation and is certainly not going to be offering an opinion on the prospects of such litigation succeeding.

Get Well Soon?

Instead, I will start by saying something that I thought would be obvious. It is very sad to hear of our former players suffering from such debilitating conditions and I wish them well. It has been an unedifying sight to see former players leap feet first into calling these players 'shithouses' and pointing out how they have suffered injuries but 'just get on with it'.

It is typical of a society that does not understand brain injuries and arguably does not want to understand them. Whilst injuries are part of a robust sport like Rugby League, the idea that suffering a brain injury is 'one of those things' doesn't sit well with me. When you have seen the impact that a brain injury can have on an individual, your opinion is likely to change rapidly.

Learning from the Past

When assessing this tricky, emotive and important issue, we must accept that great strides have been made. 

To give an example, just nine years ago, in the 2012 Grand Final, Kevin Sinfield suffered a heavy blow to the head and may have been temporarily unconscious. He played on, scored a try and inspired Leeds to another title, winning the Harry Sunderland Award in the process. His performance and bravery were hailed as heroic.

I'll give another example. In the 2006 Tri Nations, Stuart Fielden was knocked unconscious by a WIllie Mason punch. He played on for the remainder of the game. Had either of these incidents occurred in 2021, I have little doubt that both players would have been withdrawn from the field and assessed.

The RFL has a detailed strategy relating to concussion published on its website. The rules are far more stringent than they once were and that is a good thing. I do not have the expertise to say whether they are sufficient, but this is an issue that the sport takes far more seriously than it once did.

Learning from Others

Rugby League is not the only sport to be the subject of litigation. Rugby Union and American Football have too. Their legal battles have come before ours, so let's look at how our cross-code colleagues have responded.

Rugby Union has published a detailed framework which you can see here. A helpful summary is contained in the graphic below:

You will see that the starting point for high tackles and shoulder charges is a red card, unless mitigation applies. The starting point in Rugby League seems to be different, as you would have seen in the Super League Grand Final where several penalties were awarded for high tackles, yet only one yellow card shown.

In the NRL, there was a concerted campaign earlier this season where most high tackles resulted in a yellow or red card. Predictably, this lead to a slew of cards and a huge backlash from fans and pundits (especially those who know that the more outrageous the claim, the more clicks and views you get). As a result, this was quietly dropped.

Thinking Outside The Box

Whilst it is accurate to say that some concussions and head injuries in Rugby League are caused by foul play (which harsher punishments can reduce), it is far from all such injuries that arise from it.

Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy ('CTE') is a condition that a lot of sportspeople suffer from. It is a brain injury caused by repeated blows to the head or concussion. You can think of heading a ball in football as an example.

As I understand it, such injuries can be caused by a 'whiplash' effect. The sort of effect that could be felt in any legal tackle in Rugby League. As a defending player makes a legal, but forceful contact with an attacker's body, the attacker's head can jerk back, leading to the sort of incident which, if repeated, could lead to CTE.

You must also consider the impact of accidental head clashes. Or instances where players heads will clash an opponent's knee, hip or other part of the body. Or even a hand off. All of these incidents are legal yet potentially are contributory factors to CTE and other brain injuries.

How do we solve the problem?

The square that we have to circle is how do we make the game as safe as we can for our players? That is not an entirely altruistic point. By doing that, we may encourage more to participate in the sport, ensure our best players can play more often and protect ourselves from further (potentially) financially damaging litigation.

At the same time, how can we make such changes without fundamentally altering the appeal of our sport? The physicality of our sport is one of its endearing features. We are not in a position where we can alienate fans who feel that they no longer recognise the product.

It is a question without an obvious answer. I think that the best approach is to keep an open mind. Stevie Ward, the former Leeds captain, who retired at a young age due to a brain injury, has called on the sport to limit contact training. Would this help, or would it mean 'impact' injuries are likely to increase in games due to a lack of practice? It's a question worth pondering.

Should children be playing full contact forms of the sport as young as they currently do? Should the mandatory period following a concussion before returning to contact training be increased? Or would this lead to too many players sitting out for too long, causing financial issues for clubs and potentially even leaving fixtures unfulfilled?

The sport is reaching a crossroads where we may need to ask these uncomfortable questions whose answers are fraught with difficulty.