I think there's been a small amount of progress made re concussion in RL but it's still a massive issue in my opinion. I still think it's not taken as seriously as it should be. You can often see a player who goes/stays down with a knock to his head that has obviously affected his ability to get up, just have a cursory "examination" by a physio and then allowed to play on. You also see players go off then to come back on again. Was it Turner for Saints who went off last night and came back on again? That can't be right surely?
I'm not just having a go at Saints, I was both suprised and disappointed when Falloon came back on in the Boxing Day game v Wakefield. And I wonder if had Delaney not been so obviously unsteady on his legs yesterday as to whether he'd have come back on.

I think people often underestimate just how many knocks to the head players receive. If that article on Hohaia is correct then I think him having his nose broken 7 times in a season shows how often they get hit. Halfbacks probably being a bit more vulnerable?
If it's true about Saints attitude toward him then that's disappointing and if it's true about Huddersfield deliberately aiming to hit him in the head then that's appalling.

It shows we need an attitude change in RL and not just the platitudes given out by clubs CEO's or media departments. Partly players are probably going to have to start flagging up the issue themselves more. Possibly where the apparent lack of a powerful players union has an effect?

As for Flower, I know it was done to death at the time but it was about the worst thing I've ever seen on an RL pitch.
I think his suspension was lenient. It wasn't a 6 month ban. It was 12 competitive games. I don't think that was enough for such an incident. I'd have been wanting around 20 games.
Having said that, everyone deserves a second chance, but every offence he commits in the future has that incident as the background to it.

How an employee and an employer see and interpret a situation invariably will differ, sometimes hugely.
I'd be very surprised if St.Helens had not done and gone through certain procedures, however could that have being enough to reveal the true extent of rhings as LH has said he has suffered?
I can fully understand why many months afterward he might feel the need to say what he (genuinely) believes is how things happened. At thebtime he may not have being in a position to do so, it's all too easy to feel trapped in workplace and indeed family situations and can't resolve issues, can't tell people directly what's happening.
It takes those with real understanding of people to figure out something is not right and as mentioned above because of the culture of RL, because men are less likely to come out and say how bad things are to get to the root of things.
Men just as much as women need pro active support and that doesn't always happen to match the situation/person involved despite best intentions.

Whatever the outcome, LH going to a newspaper and putting it in the public domain was an extremely bad decision, if he has a grievance then there are better, far more effective channels to go down.
That said Saints response whilst obviously the words of an angry person and clearly wanting to refute LH side of things should have limited themselves in what they said. The response comes across as out of control (in a.similar vein to LH's) given the potential repercussions.
Chapter and verse most definitely was not required and certainly not the choice/strong wording despite how angry the respondant may feel.

Even Saints statement looks bad, i appreciate there might be some real and valid anger and perhaps a feeling of betrayal at Saints but they arent even helping themselves.

Their insistence on calling it a 'voluntary resignation' and stressing it was 'without due notice' and that he 'clearly wasnt entitled to continue to be paid' shows just where they are in their thinking. Hohaia didnt voluntarily resign. He retired after suffering a serious and long lasting head injury. A head injury the club apparently didnt see, didnt diagnose and allowed him to play on with.

What is worrying is the attitude expressed when they say "Throughout that time he received the highest level of professional support and empathy, both rugby and medical. His subsequent version of ongoing 'concussive symptoms' were entirely retrospective and only raised by him at the end of that period." like the club had no duty of care, no responsibility to be on top of noticing these issues and being proactive in dealing with it. Like the fact he didnt bring it up absolves them of responsibility. Even if everything Saints say is true, it is still on them to be on the lookout for these things, at best it means they missed these symptoms.

Put another way, on the back of that statement, if you were a player suffering similar issues are you going to feel confident in bringing this up? Would you be confident Saints would be proactive about protecting players in a similar situation?

Some very valid points regarding duty of care. The comments about not paying him by saints seem pretty dismissive of him as a person. Lance may have retired from playing and hence not be paid for that but saints could have continued to pay him in some other capacity which wouldn't have counted against the cap. Seeing as his forced retirement came about as a direct result of something that happened whilst he was playing for them it would have been the right thing to do rather than just leave him and his family without his income whilst thousands of miles away from home. Hudds did so with both fielden and currently are with Robinson.

Seems odd... I really can't see Saints being deliberately negligible. As an employer, they will have taken advice on this matter surely.

I am shocked at St Helens' cruel behaviour.

I once gave Eammon McManus a large piece of my steak, while at a post-match dinner at the Wembley restaurant in Canet, southern France, because there was not enough steak to go around.

I will never do that again.

I agree with this.

I feel extremely sorry for how his career has ended, but the crux seems to be payments following his resignation. I understand his frustration at the lack of heart of Saints, perhaps, but you cannot expect a 'golden handshake' when you resign, irrespective if you put your body on the line etc.

You damn well should be able to. How utterly heartless do you have to be see a player under your employ sustain a serious head injury that ends his career and think your responsibility ends there.

Im pretty appalled that his contract wasnt paid up to be honest and its a crying shame how utterly blase the game is about players who leave it at 30 years of age, often having not earned a whole lot, often with bodies battered and broken down and often with not a whole lot of alternative options

I don't want to get into any legality. But I defiantly would not expect Saints to 'pay up' his contract. Firstly, he played with Saints for 3 of his 13 seasons, thus should Saints pay out his remaining contract or should the New Zealand Warriors shoulder some blame to concussions sustained with them, that had an accumulative effect.

Plus, how can you sue Ben Flower personally? Without suggesting you should sue other players for negligible 'swinging arms' that have also caused him concussions. Both are illegal?

I'm playing devils advocate here.

He resigned and from what I can gather this was his decisions and NOT on medical advice (I maybe wrong)

Secondly, if anyone was to 'pay up' it would be Lances insurance company, I think.

It is obviously a terrible state of affairs but legally a minefield.

I think you are being overly harsh on Saints. They gave him plenty of support and treatment after the Grand Final and had him scanned multiple times to ensure he was able to return to playing. It is even hinted at by Hohaia that the scans showed no reason to stop playing. He also hints at not making a fuss about his symptoms, you are claiming it's negligent that Saints didn't spot the symptoms, how would they? Do all other clubs give their players a memory test to ensure they remember what happened the previous game? I'm entirely sure they don't. Hohaia even mentions being left out of a game the following season due to his symptoms of concussion, which again points to Saints showing due care and attention to his health. Hohaia also mentions wanting to take an extended leave, why would Saints permit that if he had been reporting no ill effects until that point and his scans showed no reason to be concerned?

The best way to resolve this would be a court case. But it seems Hohaia doesn't want any of that, which hints at it's likely outcome as it's clear he has no lingering sense of duty to the club. If it's just because he's an easy going guy who doesn't want the fuss, why allow an interview and go both barrells on the club?

regardless of legalities, Saints owe a moral duty of care to players representing them. Hohaia clearly and obviously suffered a severe head injury. We saw it happen. That led to his retirement. Its incredibly wrong of the game to simply abandon him.

Im not particularly having a go at Saints, im sure many clubs would do the same. Its still wrong.

I think you are being overly generous to Saints. Other clubs probably would act in a similar way. But that is just a bigger problem, not mitigation.

The fact is that head injuries are poorly understood, but that is simply why need to err on the side of caution, and to be proactive about it. We cant take risks because the consequences of being wrong are horrendous.

Ours is a warriors sport, a gladiatorial one, that shouldnt be lost but we as a game are responsible for players safety. If that means a concussion test every week, thats what we have to do, if it means Hohaia takes extended leave to get over it, we support him, if he has to retire, we support him. We do whatever it takes.

If Hohaia wasnt a big name player with 13 years of good pay behind him, if he was a 24 year old fringe player with a wife and kids and mortgage payments to make he may not have been able to make the decision Hohaia has, he may not feel in a position to be so forceful he could very well still be playing and this conversation could be a lot more tragic.