Power Raid
We Exist To Win Premierships
How do you propose avoiding criminal responsibility in the work place? Do you suggest we play offshore to avoid Australian work place legislation?
Opinion At what point does the league remove contact from the game?
- Thread starter Carringbush2010
- Start date
- Tagged users None
How do you propose avoiding criminal responsibility in the work place? Do you suggest we play offshore to avoid Australian work place legislation?
Posted this in the Willie Rioli MRP thread, but I feel it's relevant to this discussion, so I'll post it here too:
"The sooner people realize that the Tribunal doesn't rule on the action, but rules on the outcome- the sooner people will stopped getting worked up over the same discrepancies each and every week of every year.
If Rowell had of got concussed or suffered an injury like Duursma did - then Rioli would have been directly sent to the tribunal and likely got 4+ weeks.
The precedent has been set for years, and one of the biggest ones I can remember, is when every player that dished out dangerous tackles that resulted in their head hitting the ground with arms pinned,, was getting a week...then Burgoyne slammed Dangerfield into the ground and he was down for a while...but eventually he got up because he's built like a brick shithouse, and suffered no ill effects. The next week I think, Nic Nat tackled someone small and they got concussed - and he was ruled out.
The AFL has obviously made a conscious decision to 'look' like they're doing something, whenever it comes to serious incidents - so when future legal issues arise like this CTE saga that's emerging, they have a defence of sorts.
I said it back then, and it's as clear as day to me now - the AFL has basically said 'if you're tough enough to take a hit, then we won't ban you based on the action.'
Same goes for Draper striking Ratugolea on the weekend. Merrett did that a few years back and broke a player's ribs - and copped weeks. Draper does it to Sav, and he goes off the ground and plays out the match - cops a fine. The situations are no different, but one player copped ill effects and the other didn't - so Merrett was given weeks and Draper was not.
If the results were reversed, and Robinson had of collided with say a bull like Ollie Wines, and Rioli had collided with say a small player like Izak Rankine and the former group both got up and played the game out/the latter incident left Rankine with an injury - I can 99.9% guarantee you that they would have said 'no case to answer' for Robinson and 'weeks' for Rioli.
This is the only template the AFL operate on, and it's getting more and more apparent each and every week, IMO."
"The sooner people realize that the Tribunal doesn't rule on the action, but rules on the outcome- the sooner people will stopped getting worked up over the same discrepancies each and every week of every year.
If Rowell had of got concussed or suffered an injury like Duursma did - then Rioli would have been directly sent to the tribunal and likely got 4+ weeks.
The precedent has been set for years, and one of the biggest ones I can remember, is when every player that dished out dangerous tackles that resulted in their head hitting the ground with arms pinned,, was getting a week...then Burgoyne slammed Dangerfield into the ground and he was down for a while...but eventually he got up because he's built like a brick shithouse, and suffered no ill effects. The next week I think, Nic Nat tackled someone small and they got concussed - and he was ruled out.
The AFL has obviously made a conscious decision to 'look' like they're doing something, whenever it comes to serious incidents - so when future legal issues arise like this CTE saga that's emerging, they have a defence of sorts.
I said it back then, and it's as clear as day to me now - the AFL has basically said 'if you're tough enough to take a hit, then we won't ban you based on the action.'
Same goes for Draper striking Ratugolea on the weekend. Merrett did that a few years back and broke a player's ribs - and copped weeks. Draper does it to Sav, and he goes off the ground and plays out the match - cops a fine. The situations are no different, but one player copped ill effects and the other didn't - so Merrett was given weeks and Draper was not.
If the results were reversed, and Robinson had of collided with say a bull like Ollie Wines, and Rioli had collided with say a small player like Izak Rankine and the former group both got up and played the game out/the latter incident left Rankine with an injury - I can 99.9% guarantee you that they would have said 'no case to answer' for Robinson and 'weeks' for Rioli.
This is the only template the AFL operate on, and it's getting more and more apparent each and every week, IMO."
One thing I would say is this: many seriously violent acts that were perfectly legal in the 90s - say, Voss on Richardson or Riccuito on Kemp - have been eradicated from the game.
At the time, there were plenty of questions about whether removing the shirtfront from the game would irrevocably damage it in some way. I have to say now that as much as there is a bit of a fascination with the "big hits" highlights from that era, I think the game is vastly better off without that. It is still a game that takes plenty of courage to play, but it's no longer a game where players can aim to deliberately inflict a serious injury on smaller opponents.
At the time, there were plenty of questions about whether removing the shirtfront from the game would irrevocably damage it in some way. I have to say now that as much as there is a bit of a fascination with the "big hits" highlights from that era, I think the game is vastly better off without that. It is still a game that takes plenty of courage to play, but it's no longer a game where players can aim to deliberately inflict a serious injury on smaller opponents.
JustaBattler
Everyone Looks Better In Blue
- May 31, 2012
- 26,976
- 63,187
- AFL Club
- Carlton
The legal way to deal with inherent dangers in any occupation is contractual - the risks have to be spelled out upfront and the 'consideration' also made clear - upfront. This (inevitably) introduces layers of contractual complexity - and irrespective of drafting - potential for legal argument in due course.
However, the long-term outlook for most heavy contact sports isn't good - because parents are becoming increasingly reluctant to encourage participation.
- Oct 19, 2020
- 22,093
- 31,909
- AFL Club
- Richmond
The game is tough enough as it is. You don't need cheap shots allowed in the game to make it tough.
The Sydney Stack bump on Jack Viney is a good example of how to bump and hurt someone without going near their head.
Protecting the head is not 'soft'.
The Sydney Stack bump on Jack Viney is a good example of how to bump and hurt someone without going near their head.
Protecting the head is not 'soft'.
Power Raid
We Exist To Win Premierships
one can't sign away criminal responsibility. It is a matter between the crown/ DPP and the individual being charged. It has nothing to do with a counter party such as a player.
You mean… Squid Game lied?!?
Have the rule changes, reduced the amount of concussions per week? If they haven't, why bother changing the fabric of our great game. The NFL altered rules and it's dropped concussion down by 35%. The NFL is a one direction game, where there's no ground ball.
I don't think the changes the AFL has made has dropped concussion, we now have a medical sub, our game has too many variables to bring in rules to drop concussion, it's just a watered down version of AFL
I don't think the changes the AFL has made has dropped concussion, we now have a medical sub, our game has too many variables to bring in rules to drop concussion, it's just a watered down version of AFL
owen87
Premium Gold
- Apr 23, 2016
- 30,834
- 43,197
- AFL Club
- Essendon
There's significantly more protocols around head knocks now, more concussions doesn't mean there's actually more concussions, it's just now they're almost all identified instead of being ignored.
Surely players recognise that stepping onto the field comes with an inherent level of risk?
It's like boxers kicking off because they've been knocked out.
It's like boxers kicking off because they've been knocked out.
Well it's a free kick if you get head high contact, I'm not sure how the AFL can ask for duty of care where it's a contested ball, it defeats the purpose of the game to win the ball first
Floghead2007
Not a draftee
- Banned
- #37
with the far too many rule changes going on..... i think they are halfway through the process already, i might be 14 but i do like some nice hard footy and i would like it to stay that way
I was roundly mocked a week ago for suggesting the next part of our game to be tampered with will be the mark as a contesed mark often leads to concussion. The AFL argued that Rioli had a duty of care to consider the safety of his opponent in that contest. This is beyond insane. So if a similar situation arises in this year's grand final, the AFL expects the player on the opposing team to allow his opponent to take a simple uncontested chest mark to win the flag rather than risk a collision and possible concussion or injury.
How can a plyer be expected to make such a split second decision in the heat of a contested contact game? Imagine what would be said about Rioli had he simply stood and watched as Rowell took an uncontested mark.
When is this endless tinkering going to stop?
How can a plyer be expected to make such a split second decision in the heat of a contested contact game? Imagine what would be said about Rioli had he simply stood and watched as Rowell took an uncontested mark.
When is this endless tinkering going to stop?
JustaBattler
Everyone Looks Better In Blue
- May 31, 2012
- 26,976
- 63,187
- AFL Club
- Carlton
Of course not - but occupational hazard isn't a criminal matter.
Power Raid
We Exist To Win Premierships
criminal negligence absolutely is a criminal matter
JustaBattler
Everyone Looks Better In Blue
- May 31, 2012
- 26,976
- 63,187
- AFL Club
- Carlton
There is no 'negligence' criminal or otherwise if parties to any agreement - agree on the risks involved in their contractual arrangements.
I doubt that such agreements (currently) exist though - I am not privy to the detail of contractual terms between player(s) and Clubs and AFL.
Power Raid
We Exist To Win Premierships
again parties can not sign away criminal negligence as the counter party is the crown/ DPP
can you imagine the DPP signing away criminal rights?
JustaBattler
Everyone Looks Better In Blue
- May 31, 2012
- 26,976
- 63,187
- AFL Club
- Carlton
I'm not understanding where you are finding 'criminal negligence' to be a factor here.
Players understand that there is an inherent risk in playing a contact sport - the evidence for this is clear in the history of the game and their own personal experiences. The administrators of the game understand that there is risk in the game.
I can't see the argument for 'criminal' negligence that you are making.
The term criminal implies a crime - what exactly is the 'crime' here?
- Mar 7, 2016
- 5,817
- 10,037
- AFL Club
- Carlton
- Other Teams
- Red Bull Racing F1
What an a-hole move that was
JustaBattler
Everyone Looks Better In Blue
- May 31, 2012
- 26,976
- 63,187
- AFL Club
- Carlton
That was a rare example of very little room for discussion regarding his intent - the Murphy hit was a very well executed and disguised attack on a player's head. Same as Mitchel's penchant for kneeing blokes in contests, Lewis' track record of punching spoils into players heads ....went on for years and protected by some kind of boys Club BS at AFL HQ and even celebrated by media.
We don't know, because concussion was poorly defined and measured in the past. Let the player know which way the team's kicking, send him back out.
The main aim here, anyway, isn't specifically to lower the number of concussions, it's to prevent long-term brain damage and that will take time.
What has changed the fabric of the game far more than the head knock rules, IMO, is the tactical evolution of the game.
But it was Hodgey the loveable larrikin, nothing to see here! smh.
Power Raid
We Exist To Win Premierships
Work health safety acts have criminalised work place accidents meaning:
1) you can no longer get insurance as you can't insure criminal issues
2) you can be pursued as an individual and there is no longer the requirement to pursue the company first
the penalties in WA have just increased from $550k and 5 years jail to $5m and 20 years jail.
the act covers all forms of carrying on a business (this is a very broad definition to cover all) and covers employees, visitors and volunteers.
To protect oneself you need to demonstrate positive due diligence and even then if an incident occurs, you are on the back foot.
I think because we see such little physical contact in the sport these days that each and every incident of contact is blown out to be some type of mass murder.
The game these days is pretty much non contact already, it is well over 60% uncontested. So much of todays game is players having possession on their own.
Because of this uncontested brand of the sport when a player does have contact they normally go down like a box of feathers being hit, and it's not because they are soft but more so because they simply don't expect to be contacted anymore.
We have made the game super safe for them, we allow them to run back with the flight of the ball knowing that it's 99% chance they won't be greeted by heavy physical contact, ask the players in the 80's and 90's if they wanted to run back with the flight of the ball? They knew it was very dangerous to do so and not many would even stand in the space of a leading forward back then. Now it's no big deal.
We now blame the player with the ball for head high contact when for 100 plus years we penalized the tackler. The head is not sacrosanct if you blame the player with the ball for head high contact.
While I admire the fitness and strength of the modern player I don't think the modern game is hard to play, it's uncontested. I am not sure it could be safer than it is.
I know the AFL are worried about litigation but surely the player has to take some responsibility for playing a sport that could possibly harm them? How is it possible the player has no responsibility?
The game these days is pretty much non contact already, it is well over 60% uncontested. So much of todays game is players having possession on their own.
Because of this uncontested brand of the sport when a player does have contact they normally go down like a box of feathers being hit, and it's not because they are soft but more so because they simply don't expect to be contacted anymore.
We have made the game super safe for them, we allow them to run back with the flight of the ball knowing that it's 99% chance they won't be greeted by heavy physical contact, ask the players in the 80's and 90's if they wanted to run back with the flight of the ball? They knew it was very dangerous to do so and not many would even stand in the space of a leading forward back then. Now it's no big deal.
We now blame the player with the ball for head high contact when for 100 plus years we penalized the tackler. The head is not sacrosanct if you blame the player with the ball for head high contact.
While I admire the fitness and strength of the modern player I don't think the modern game is hard to play, it's uncontested. I am not sure it could be safer than it is.
I know the AFL are worried about litigation but surely the player has to take some responsibility for playing a sport that could possibly harm them? How is it possible the player has no responsibility?
JustaBattler
Everyone Looks Better In Blue
- May 31, 2012
- 26,976
- 63,187
- AFL Club
- Carlton
There is a big difference between an unsafe building site and a sporting contest.
Similar threads
