Opinion
Why I will continue to argue for concussion victims – past and future
Peter FitzSimons
Columnist and authorYes, thank you for your many texts, emails and calls. I did see my colleague Andrew Webster’s piece on me last week. And I, too – waking on the Friday morning to myriad text messages and DMs from concerned friends, readers and former editors, along the lines of “Are you OK?” – was as staggered by his piece as I was that the Herald ran it in the first place, and under such a headline, but there you go.
New regime, and all that. In my 38 years at this beloved paper, I don’t recall such criticism from one colleague on another being published – only occasionally clashing columns where we have had divergent views on ideas.
So, without fear or favour, and with malice towards some – those on high who ran it, did I mention? – let me be personal, in reply.
I like and admire Andrew Webster a great deal. He is a very good man, and an even better sports writer and author.
Over the years, my differences of opinion with the redoubtable Andrew can pretty much be counted on the fingers of one finger: concussion. And even then, the difference of opinion is one of tone, not substance. We both agree that concussion is an extremely serious issue in football, particularly the NRL, and risks being an existential threat.
But Andrew thinks that I am too much of an overbearing bastard about it, too dismissive of others’ views, too inclined to look down my pug nose to berate the NRL for not moving quickly enough on making the game safer.
Moses Suli takes a brutal hit from Jared Waerea-Hargreaves just after kick-off in the Anzac Day clash.Credit: Nine
He also thinks I am too disinclined to accept that the NRL has the players’ best interests at heart and can be trusted to make the changes necessary to make the game safer.
As to the current issue of the long kick-off – which frequently leads to men the size of Jared Waerea-Hargreaves running full-tilt at three huge men running full-tilt the other way – I am firmly in the against camp. I, and the concussion experts I know of, think there is a moral and legal imperative for the NRL to tweak the rules in exactly the same way that the NFL has just tweaked its own rules, and for the same reasons.
That is, while the NRL and NFL have always been heavy-contact sports, just like rugby union, the game has changed and not just on the field, where the players are bigger and faster than ever before, making the impacts even more devastating.
Off the field, medical science has advanced to the point that proof of the damage done by such constantly clashing and crashing vertical convertibles is incontrovertible. And civil law is now awash with precedents that professional sports organisations have a duty of care to their employees, that they breach at their peril.
James Tedesco being assessed on the field.Credit: NRL Photos
Am I too strong in my expression of dismay at those who don’t get it, those endlessly trying to block change? Maybe, I guess.
But I certainly don’t get any blowback from concussion experts, affected footballers or their families – all of whom, and without exception, urge me to go harder. I challenge anyone to spend an evening with someone suffering from possible CTE and not come away reeling, determined to do everything possible to lessen the risks for the current generation.
At every step along the way of this saga, there have been those who have argued strongly against the link between football and CTE; against doing away with shoulder charges; against HIAs; against independent medicos; against players who have obviously been affected by too many concussions from retiring early; against compulsory stand-downs for those who have been badly knocked out. I have argued for all those things, against oft-bitter opposition, and mercifully they have all come to pass anyway, making the game safer.
For me, the debate over the long kick-off is another step along the way. It is obvious that it must change, and obvious that it will change. And to me – and the many concussion experts I consult extensively before every concussion piece I write – yes, I do have frustration that it is not changing quickly enough, meaning ever more damage is being done.
Civil law is now awash with precedents that professional sports organisations have a duty of care.
For me, the idea that “changing tackling technique” can make the long kick-off returns safer is like saying there might be a way you can hold your head that will lessen the risk to your neck when you constantly drive your car into another car at 20km/h. Yes, there might be, but it is rather beside the point – particularly when it comes to the 99 per cent of players who are not professional, and not so skilled, starting with the juniors.
Ditto, the idea we can just leave the NRL to it, as it knows what needs to be done and can be counted on to do it. In no commercial sports organisation in the world, in history, has this been the case. Each step forward has come from legal, medical and public pressure. I am proud to amplify the views of the first two and help inform the view of the third.
As for Andrew, I bear you no ill will and look forward to reading your next column, as much as ever. I think!
NRL is Live and Free on Channel 9 & 9Now
Sports news, results and expert commentary. Sign up for our Sport newsletter.