I do feel rugby has not taken the issue as seriously as it could in the past, and it is clear that hia protocols are radically better now than they were. Whether for right or wrong, I suspect the players will win their case.
After giving this a bit of thought I think you're right and without wanting to get political a
family, be it sporting or any other group that does things together, should be seen in the first instance as looking after its own, with the state stepping in as the safety net. Just because something was unforeseen it doesn't mean there isn't a responsibility as a group.
Although we shouldn't forget rugby has changed in many ways to help protect player welfare, its not that long ago that packs would set up a couple of meters apart and charge at each other like raging bulls at scrum time. There's still a few areas of the game that could be tightened up, flying in to the ruck being one of them and constant monitoring of the laws will be needed.
We should also be wary of unintended consequences. It turned out that giving players helmets in American Football just led to players using their heads as battering rams, exacerbating the problem they were trying to fix.
But in the end I'm reminded of something that was taught in the Army, adventure training has to be adventurous. Even in the '80s it was recognised that we had a duty of care when organising something but also that the element of danger was what made doing something worthwhile and you could never derisk it to the point of zero risk. Skiing was the case used on that course. Rugby is the same, its the physical contest that attracts players and spectators alike and without it young athletes will go off and do something else because overcoming risk and danger has its own rewards.
Always a Wasp
