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.