Just to throw a snake in the bag... but was it Flowers punches that caused Hohaia's ongoing concussion problems or was that simply the tipping point?

Did Flower do Hohaia a favour in bringing to the forefront an underlying concussion problem? Hohaia had his nose broken six times in 2014, by definition this means his head must have received many serious and consecutive traumas prior to Flowers despicable and cowardly actions.

It is impossible to say that Flower's action caused Hohaia's problems, they may have had a massive contributory factor but it is doubtful that they were solely responsible for his ongoing 'concussion like' problems prior to the 2014 GF. After playing top level RL for 14 years Hohaia head must have take some serious abuse.

JP once likened a RL game to getting hit by a small car doing 30mph 20 or 30 times per game. My point being that RL may have an accumulative effect on the brain and, although it was the Flower punch that Hohaia claims ended his career, it could have quite easily been a stray elbow or knee in a tackle that would have done the same.

Every time you see that Flower incident it gets more and more sickening. How anyone is dumb enough to compare that incident with anything seen in the last couple of decades, I do not know. How he only got six months for that is really bad.

Did he cause the problems? Probably not considering the point made above about previous head injuries. But did he make the situation much worse? Obviously so considering the players statement of events. Flower is a disgrace to our game, and for a club like Wigan to support him, really is a low.

If you want to compare Ben Flower's FIRST punch to Garbutt's on Tamou then go ahead. If you want to compare the SECOND punch to anything else that has happened on a Rugby field over the last decade, then you're an idiot, and have probably taken one too many to the head yourself.

Aside from all the usual outrage here drenched in anti-Wigan sentiment from the usual boneheaded suspects, the issue is no longer about Wigan or Flower or that incident. It is about the events which took place afterwards.

Following the incident, did the employer (St Helens) follow proper procedure in terms of risk assessment with specific regard to the future health of their employee (Hohaia) post Grand Final incident? As his employer, they legally have a duty of care towards him. If they neglected to provide any risk assessment and duty of care, that is negligence, in which case Hohaia has a case against them.

Hohaia claims in the article that St Helens gave him painkillers and insisted he played. If he wasn't happy with such a fait accompli, he can walk away from the club and his contract terminated (which is in fact what happened, without compensation). If that is the case, St Helens could be deep in the smelly brown stuff if Hohaia were to proceed with a case against them.

Their response to the Hohaia article in the NZ Herald yesterday was rather irresponsible and tetchy, to say the least.

I can envisage legal proceedings from this situation . It may even end up with a claim against saints or even Wigan.

I could see a claim against saints and even flower or the man himself, but can't see how anyone could make a claim against Wigan unless I am missing something

Probably the same idiots who say that it was Hohaia's fault what happened to him in the GF.

There are some Warrington fans on their forum saying things not too dissimilar.

I know, I've seen some Leeds fans say similar in the past also. All ridiculous.

The claim against flower would be covered by the Wigan clubs insurance. So ultimately the Wigan club would be involved.
Potentially he would claim for loss of earnings , stress as a result of the assault and future health problems.
Proving these factors is a different matter entirely . In the USA there are a number of similar actions being instigated in the nfl for head trauma injuries.

Agree with this analysis. IMO it is only a matter of time before a precedent is set with a big compensation case relating to concussion and duty of care by clubs in SL.

Yes it will happen and I suspect sooner rather than later.

Probably in American Football first, or possibly a player in the NRL.

Given the knee-jerk response from St Helens yesterday, it just might be SL having to deal with the fallout.

Already happened in the NFL mate. The NFL spent years denying any causal link between the sport and concussions (see new Will Smith movie, Concussion). Then they eventually reached a settlement of almost $1 billion with the NFL Players association. That settlement is on hold as a handful of players are unhappy with it and are pushing the matter to the Supreme Court.

Oh, and regardless of legal rights Hohia is a grub and whilst he may not have deserved it he was certainly the architect of his own misfortune.

I wasn't aware the legal process had progressed that far in American Football. I think the key point which many forget is that employers have a duty of care towards their employees as well as providing a safe working environment. This is where it gets tricky in contact sports. How do you provide a safe working environment? I guess they can only be made safer.

Often in sport, we've seen cases of career-ending injuries legally dealt with on an individual basis. In other words, injured party A sues individual B responsible for injury. The sports governing bodies and their clubs themselves (employers) have been getting away with it for far too long. It's time they took more responsibility.

You have touched on several salient points, the main one being duty of care.
I am surprised that no police action was undertaken against flower. If you recall Ferguson the Everton footballer was given three months for head butting on the field of play.

didnt huddersfield get a fine for same thing when luke robinson played on then got taken off for tests.

Us older fans who say "bring back the biff" and even current fans who bemoan the outlawing of the shoulder charge would do well to pause and reflect upon this.

The NFL has introduced plenty of rule changes which have been massively unpopular with the fans, who complain it is softening the game. But they have had no choice but to do so.

You might find this interesting reading. The NFL is slightly different because the helmet, although design as protection, may actual cause more damage as contact with the head wasn't, and still isn't in some cases, automatically illegal. Nevertheless, the denial of the issue and the macho "shake it off" mantra clearly still applies to rugby league, if Hoihia's account is to be believed.

[urlhttp://www.rd.com/health/conditions/mike-webster-brain-injury/[/url

A truly sad account of a player who had effectively given his life for his footy team and his employer. Didn't go for hospital treatment because he wasn't insured! Employer negligence? Absolutely. It surprises me not that the corporate hawk owner of the club in question didn't even believe the afflicted hall of fame player warranted or qualified for any compensation. What a piece of sh1yte.

Any talk of punches or shoulder charges relating to this is pointless
Look at Sam Burgess this weekend, an innocuous looking tackle could have seen him paralysed if it would have been a little different
At the end of the day its a contact sport, cant help stuff like this really

The only issue would be if the club doctors knowingly risked his health by letting him play, it is a serious allegation as they could probably be stricken off if there was a chance of serious brain damage being done, although I personally dont believe it was as black and white as Hohaia made out

how long before scrum caps become compulsory?

They don't protect from concussion unfortunately. In fact the false sense of security they give can make concussion more likely. They wear helmets in the NFL and fat lot of good that does.

I've never liked the shoulder charge, I actually don't really remember it from my early days of watching the game. High shots were commonplace but I don't remember the shoulder charge being common. It's obviously very dangerous and has gone the way of the spear tackle (which was originally coached as I remember) and rightly been outlawed. A player at full tilt suddenly stopped dead by a big impact is exactly the sort of motion that causes the brain to collide with the interior of the skull and cause damage.

Biff is another matter. I'm not sure what the results would be if we went back and did a retrospective study of league players from the 60's onwards what we would find. My own feeling is that even in the "era of the biff" as it seems to be known now, I can't remember too many players taking a knockout blow in actual games I have attended - I have a memory of Les Gorley being assisted from the field after a fracas with Roy Dickinson but that's about it. However, I've seen many, many players knocked out by late high shots (now gone from the game) and general collisions.

I know Wrestling isn't a Sport, but classed as "Sports Entertainment" but a number of incidents attributed to concussion have been investigated over the last few years.

The most high profile was the Wrestler Chris Benoit, who killed his Family and then hung himself on this Weights Machine. The autopsy revealed extensive brain damage caused by concussion related injuries from head shots (Chairs, etc..) and hitting the mat and other Wrestlers with the head.

It is a serious issue and one that needs to be handled very carefully.

Is concussion always caused by blows to the head? Can it not also be caused by high impact collisions on the body that causes the brain to effectively pinball around the skull? Essentially what is a core part of our game.

Point being that I totally agree head shots and other dangerous tackles need to be well policed but actually where we protect players most is by better and consistent player assessment and onfield protection.

Hohiah alludes to years of playing impact sport being the real factor with flowers thuggery just being the final straw.

On a related note and key to my earlier point I was disgusted by the lack of player welfare shown by Thaler as Delaney staggered about the pitch in his view. Much more needs to be done.

DHM - agree entirely about the shoulder charge. Fans supporting it talked as though it had always been around. IMO it was extremely rare (if not unknown) in the 80s, and most of the 90s. I'd guess it crept into the game and because daft commentators and fans wet themselves over the 'big hit' element it took off. It was never the integral part of the game some claimed it to be.

SBW was the first I remember doing it regularly. The hit on Bai in the 2005 WCC exemplified exactly why it should always have been illegal. A shoulder directly into a player's head leaving him virtually unconscious. If it was any other kind of tackle that caused that damage the tackler would have been sent off. I still don't understand why players weren't being sent off for it when it first came out.

Fallon - your point about whiplash brain injury is also important, and another reason why the shoulder charge should was banned outright in the NRL.