Risk and Reward

The biggest risk in life is not taking risks at all.

Risk is what makes life worth living. And whether we realise it or not, we take small risks every day. If you are lucky enough to have a partner or a close friend, think of how you met them. One of you would have had to pluck up the courage to speak to the other. That's a risk. The risk of appearing foolish is one that we rarely talk about but impacts the decision making of humans greatly. But think where your life would be without risk.

Applying this to sport, none of the players who play Rugby League professionally would be where they are today without risk. The first step on that ladder is usually turning up to a junior team, often alone, to play a team sport. The majority of Rugby League players lives would not be the same, if their younger self did not take that risk.

Risk is not always good though. A way of navigating life is knowing when to take a risk and when not to. And if you are in the insurance industry, risk is not a good thing. Risks costs money. 

Professional sport needs insurance to exist. According to media reports in 2022, the insurance premiums for Rugby League quadrupled in one year. It was around this time that news emerged that a group of former Rugby League players were contemplating legal action against the sport's governing body for an alleged negligent failure to protect them from head injuries.

It cannot be said without knowledge of discussions between insurers and the RFL whether the two are caustively linked. Yet it seems implausible that this would not be true.

If you're looking for a populist piece raging against the ex-players who have taken this action, you're in the wrong place. I have immense sympathy with any players who are suffering from brain injuries, following a Rugby League career. I found the testimony of Francis Maloney particularly harrowing.

I have no knowledge whether the action contemplated is meritorious or not. I suspect that those involved may not yet know with certainty. But we must deal in reality. No amount of social media ranting will change the position that the sport finds itself in.

Whether related to this action, increased insurance premiums or an overwhelming desire for safety, in 2024, Rugby League has introduced more severe punishments for head contacts and, in some cases, are punishing offences that have not been punished before. Anyone with even a latent knowledge of Rugby Union would have seen this coming, as a similar clampdown has occurred. 

It is important to acknowledge that Rugby League has come a long way in dealing with head injuries in recent times. Punching opponents in the head has been virtually eliminated. There are tackles made 20 years ago that you would not see now. Players have adapted and are less reckless with their technique. The shoulder charge to the head is no longer seen as fair game

In a high-impact sport such as ours, head injuries will always occur. The introduction of Head Injury Assessment substitutions, where the doctor's word is final was a huge, positive step. One that sports like football continue to wrestle with (yes, I know football isn't as high impact but significant head injuries can and do still occur).

I have been impressed with clubs like Leeds and the way they have handled Morgan Gannon; a young man who has suffered several concussions. The caution and patience they have shown in managing his return to play is one example of how clubs show they do care for their players.

The new rules introduced at the start of the season have caused issues. Instead of talking about brilliant Ash Handley tries, Wigan's chance to get back to the Rugby League summit, whether Hull KR are the real deal or the biggest crowd London Broncos have attracted in almost 15 years, we are talking about on-field sanctions for head-high contact.

You may say that is a choice that we (and I) have made. Yet given the pervasive impact of the new sanctions, it cannot simply be ignored. Whatever your view, I think we all want the same thing. We want the game to be ferocious, intense, entertaining, yet as safe as it possibly can be for our super-human athletes.

If we are to solve some of the obvious problems that have arisen over the last two weeks, we need to think not only about what we want but firstly what we can realistically achieve. We all say we want consistency of application.

But we must be realistic. Human beings are not consistent. So that will never be achieved in any field. We also tend to use 'consistency' as a synonym for 'perfection'.

In the context of foul play, what one person may deem a "high force" contact, another may deem a "low force" contact. That can only ever be a matter of opinion.

In some ways, we should be careful what we wish for. If everything in sport was consistent, then it would serve no purpose as we would know the outcome before we even began.

More realistically, I think an open dialogue can lead to solutions. I have been concerned to read players voicing concerns about a lack of dialogue concerning the new interpretations. Though I do find that hard to reconcile with the fact that referees visited each club and explained these at length pre-season.

I believe that a reasonable starting point would be to move more incrementally that we have done now. One example of that would be to come down hard on reckless or careless contact, initially (such as James Donaldson's tackle on Thursday night) but where the contact is accidental (such as Nu Brown's tackle on Friday), we should show greater leniency.

As I said earlier though, do not expect consistency even if that happens. I anticipate that some reading this may disagree with my view that James Donaldson's high tackle was reckless or careless. Therein lies the problem.

Tony Smith explained a key issue eloquently last night. He said that we are asking players who have practised one technique for their whole lives to learn a new technique in a short period of time. 

That is tough. We are placing players in a very difficult position. We are also placing referees in a difficult position. Their role is not to "use common sense" as many say they should. It is to apply the laws of the game, without discretion, fear or favour. You may not pick and choose which laws are applied and when they are applied. 

They are receiving significant abuse for performing their role, as instructed. Imagine the uproar if a referee decided to use their discretion to award a try when a ball had been dropped? That's an extreme example, I know, but that is what the ill-thought through calls for a 'common sense' approach may theoretically lead to.

There are talks of player strikes in the media. I do not think this is helpful. At least yet. We are only two weeks into the season and of a new era of how the sport is policed.

It is not too early to pause and ask are we getting this right. We should not be too proud or wedded to a particular stance. I am against change for the sake of change but not against flexibility where we get things wrong.

That starts not with shouting, threats of strike action and chest-beating in the media, but with dialogue. And one which is open, honest and involves all stakeholders in the sport.

We should be proud of the enormous steps forward we have taken over the last decade or so to further player welfare. But we should also be wary of unintended consequences.

If so many players are banned, you face a situation where a side may have to field many 17 or 18 year old players against fully-grown men. That would not further player welfare, it would damage it. The exact consequence we are seeking to avoid.

Now is the time for cool heads, open dialogue, honesty and a solution-focused debate. It concerns me that we are currently seeing the opposite.