Categories Sport

7 days 30 days All time Recent Popular
Over 70 former professional rugby players are preparing for legal action against the sport’s governing bodies according to this report.

The group litigation seems to be in its early stages, but World Rugby & Unions will be starting to get twitchy.

THREAD on the key issues 👇🏼


1) Duty of care

Do the governing bodies (World Rugby, RFU, WRU etc) owe players a duty of care in respect of their health and safety? The answer is almost certainly yes (see for example Watson v BBBoC).

2) Breach of duty

Have the governing bodies breached this duty? This is the first of the major hurdles for any litigation.

The question is essentially whether they acted reasonably in the circumstances.

Did they know about the dangers of concussion and fail to act?

Or should they have done more to discover the dangers of concussion but failed to do so?

The NFL case was based on the fact that the NFL knew of the dangers and covered them up. I’d suggest that’s unlikely here. However, it may be that WR/Unions should have done more sooner.

Much will depend upon the state of medical/scientific understanding of concussion at the relevant times.

For example, in the early 80s it may be that there was no indication that concussion might cause long-term complications but, by the early 2000s, there was.
A (long) thread on why Andrew is correct but ultimately incorrect…

Andrew is correct at the neurological level. The cognitive and ecological explanations of the brain and behaviour are completely different. Saying you’re an eclectic coach at this level is like saying you


believe the earth is round and flat. It’s simply not possible.

You CANNOT say that in one activity you are helping players build representations/memory (cognitive) and in another activity you’re helping players attune to specifying information in the environment (ecological).

No matter how much we scream eclecticism, at the neurological level Andrew is correct. But after this Andrew is incorrect.

He is basing his critique of an ‘it depends’ stance at a neurological ‘representations vs information’ level (see his thread). But this isn’t the level that

‘it depends’ functions (in a coaching context). ‘It depends’ exists at the behavioural level (certainly not the neurological level). ‘It depends’ relates to decision making around individual and group differences, as well as context. Coaching, by and large, is about helping

people manage and change behaviour – how a coach does this will ‘depend’ on a number of individual, group and contextual factors. That is the most important level of coaching and we don’t have to go to the neurological level to deliver efficaciously and effectively