Can the AFL Actually Beat Concussion Class Actions with these Stupid MRO Decisions?

[Lavender Bushranger]

I'm assuming that any action taken against the AFL or clubs is based on negligence? They either were negligent in forcing players to keep playing, even though they were concussed, or didn't do enough to make players aware of the dangers of concussion?

So let's say they are liable for this stuff in the past.

Moving forward to present day, how does anything that the AFL are doing in terms of the MRO reduce their liability for head knocks and concussions?

Obviously forcing players to miss a game when they get concussed, and providing all the information and education around head injuries is a direct mitigation against the actions we know about.

Maybe I'm wrong, but is anyone suing them for the game being too dangerous?

It's always been illegal to hit someone. It's always been illegal to tackle or bump someone High.

I'm no big city lawyer, but how does suspending guys for bumps and tackles reduce the AFL's liability?

The AFL have never condoned or allowed head high contact. It's always been an illegal act.

Does the fact that it's 'more illegal' now really get the AFL off the hook for future class actions??

I feel we're being conned a bit here.


There are multiple ways you can get concussed playing footy.

Most of them have always been illegal.

But things like a knee to the head in a Marking contest, an incidental 'footy act', an accidental clash of heads, copping a Falcon, or getting accidentally knocked out by a teammate are completely legal.

Does making bumps and tackles 'more illegal' really make the game safer? I mean sure, the Likelihood in theory comes down a bit - but there's still heaps of ways you can legally be concussed. And given there seems to be guys going off under the Concussion every week still, I'd argue the Likelihood reduction has been pretty minimal.

And the Consequence doesn't change.


I'd argue that overall, this MRO nonsense around dangerous tackles and even most bumps, will actually achieve fu** all in terms of reducing the AFL's liability.

 

[Kwality]

The continuing decisions to increase the number of players on the bench to speed up the game run counter to any attempt to deny liability. (imho)

 

[HairyO]

Simple answer is No, because we know they will let Brownlow favourites get away with dangerous actions.

 

[Grand Uncle Horace]

Simple answer is No, because we know they will let Brownlow favourites get away with dangerous actions.

Aye. Plus it is open season on Swans. Cerra on Hickey, Duncan on Fox and Butler on Blakey all got away with it.

 

[Power Raid]

I'm assuming that any action taken against the AFL or clubs is based on negligence? They either were negligent in forcing players to keep playing, even though they were concussed, or didn't do enough to make players aware of the dangers of concussion?

So let's say they are liable for this stuff in the past.

Moving forward to present day, how does anything that the AFL are doing in terms of the MRO reduce their liability for head knocks and concussions?

Obviously forcing players to miss a game when they get concussed, and providing all the information and education around head injuries is a direct mitigation against the actions we know about.

Maybe I'm wrong, but is anyone suing them for the game being too dangerous?

It's always been illegal to hit someone. It's always been illegal to tackle or bump someone High.

I'm no big city lawyer, but how does suspending guys for bumps and tackles reduce the AFL's liability?

The AFL have never condoned or allowed head high contact. It's always been an illegal act.

Does the fact that it's 'more illegal' now really get the AFL off the hook for future class actions??

I feel we're being conned a bit here.


There are multiple ways you can get concussed playing footy.

Most of them have always been illegal.

But things like a knee to the head in a Marking contest, an incidental 'footy act', an accidental clash of heads, copping a Falcon, or getting accidentally knocked out by a teammate are completely legal.

Does making bumps and tackles 'more illegal' really make the game safer? I mean sure, the Likelihood in theory comes down a bit - but there's still heaps of ways you can legally be concussed. And given there seems to be guys going off under the Concussion every week still, I'd argue the Likelihood reduction has been pretty minimal.

And the Consequence doesn't change.


I'd argue that overall, this MRO nonsense around dangerous tackles and even most bumps, will actually achieve fu** all in terms of reducing the AFL's liability.

the decision tree and processes DIRECTORS who face criminal negligence is as follows:

1) identify the risk (ie sling tackle)
2) risk of injury (brain damage - severe)
3) probability (low on one occasion but high if multiple events)
4) identify control to mitigate risk
5) measure residual probability
6) refer risk matrix (outcome is still high as death or serious injury is possible)
7) implement controls
8) monitor controls for compliance and breaches

fail any steps above is likely to result in criminal charges

the civil risk still remains regardless but at least insurance will cover civil issues but one can't insure against criminal

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

Aye. Plus it is open season on Swans. Cerra on Hickey, Duncan on Fox and Butler on Blakey all got away with it.

But even if they don't get suspended - head high contact and pushing in the back is, and always has been, illegal.

You're not allowed to do it and get a free against if you do.

Does suspending guys for it make the game safer? I don't think so.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

the decision tree and processes DIRECTORS who face criminal negligence is as follows:

1) identify the risk (ie sling tackle)
2) risk of injury (brain damage - severe)
3) probability (low on one occasion but high if multiple events)
4) identify control to mitigate risk
5) measure residual probability
6) refer risk matrix (outcome is still high as death or serious injury is possible)
7) implement controls
8) monitor controls for compliance and breaches

fail any steps above is likely to result in criminal charges

the civil risk still remains regardless but at least insurance will cover civil issues but one can't insure against criminal

But this is the thing, the current class actions are not about the game being risky. They're about not being protected from concussion in the sense that they were put back on the ground, didn't get rest when concussed, didn't get treatment or guidance around multiple Concussions, and weren't educated on the dangers of Concussion.

I could be wrong, but I haven't seen anything to suggest that there is any legal repercussions relating to the sport being too dangerous.

So I don't think the threat is the sling tackle. The threat is not caring for players properly when they get concussed.


But having said that, for argument's sake, let's say that they are trying to reduce the likelihood of people getting concussed.

Is suspending a guy for doing something that is already illegal, really doing that?

Granted the sling tackle and most 'dangerous tackles' have only become illegal recently.

But driving a guy forward in a tackle has always been illegal. Talking them high, or bumping them high has always been illegal. Whacking someone has always been illegal.

So considering you can fall on your head and get concussed in a marking contest, get kneed in the head in a marking contest etc. etc. etc. - would suspending guys for already illegal acts be something that a court of law would actually say 'Oh yeah, no worries, you guys are the hook. You've done everything possible to remove the risk from the game. You're not liable.'

So back to my original point - I can't see how suspensions for dangerous tackles, as opposed to free kicks, is going to reduce their liability.

If guys lodge a class action for getting repeatedly concussed in marking contests, like Matt Maguire or Sean Dempster - how does the AFL suspending guys for sling tackles reduce their liability?

It just doesn't add up.

 

[M Malice]

Footy soon >

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

the decision tree and processes DIRECTORS who face criminal negligence is as follows:

1) identify the risk (ie sling tackle)
2) risk of injury (brain damage - severe)
3) probability (low on one occasion but high if multiple events)
4) identify control to mitigate risk
5) measure residual probability
6) refer risk matrix (outcome is still high as death or serious injury is possible)
7) implement controls
8) monitor controls for compliance and breaches

fail any steps above is likely to result in criminal charges

the civil risk still remains regardless but at least insurance will cover civil issues but one can't insure against criminal

I just reread this.

Are you suggesting that these rule changes and this MRO nonsense, may be to reduce the AFL commission's personal criminal liability? And nothing to do with the 'good of the game' and the.class actions?

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

Footy soon >

To be honest, I'm not even necessarily bemoaning the state of the game per se.

If the AFL's actions actually aligned with the class actions, I could at least justify it. But I'm not seeing it.

I'm not seeing how any of this would get them off the hook.

 

[Saint12]

Max Rooke

Max Rooke

Age

43

Ht

189cm

Wt

93kg

Pos.

Fwd

Career

Season

Last 5

D

11.8

3star

K

6.0

2star

HB

5.8

4star

M

3.8

4star

T

2.8

4star

G

0.4

3star

No current season stats available

D

12.0

3star

K

7.4

3star

HB

4.6

4star

M

2.8

3star

T

2.6

4star

G

0.2

3star

?....cant recall much of his career but did he have a history of concussion?

 

[Iamspock]

Max Rooke?....cant recall much of his career but did he have a history of concussion?

Yes, he did. Many concussions throughout his career.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

Max Rooke?....cant recall much of his career but did he have a history of concussion?

Dude was a human wrecking ball.

One of my all time favourites.

 

[bungholes_premiers]

Simple answer is no but they sure as hell will try... u know, kinda like shutting down an entire global economy for a cold....

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

Simple answer is no but they sure as hell will try... u know, kinda like shutting down an entire global economy for a cold....

But shutting down society, rightly or wrongly in the bigger scheme of things, actually did directly stop heaps of people from dying.

My point is that the AFL's actions are not actually addressing the issue.

It's creating all the shitty fallout, without actually addressing the issue they're apparently worried about.

 

[master bate]

Actions now are to prevent future law suits,

BUT,

What if the afl are actually doing the right thing for the right reasons too.

These law suits exist for a reason. Multiple concussions and CTE sound horrific.

Don’t we owe it to the players to attempt to prevent it?

 

[Mitchell Madness]

Footy soon >

Wouldn't prevent concussion as concussion is from the brain rattling around the skull

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

Actions now are to prevent future law suits,

BUT,

What if the afl are actually doing the right thing for the right reasons too.

These law suits exist for a reason. Multiple concussions and CTE sound horrific.

Don’t we owe it to the players to attempt to prevent it?

That's the line we keep hearing... but explain to me how suspending people for already illegal acts, prevent CTE?

 

[bungholes_premiers]

But shutting down society, rightly or wrongly in the bigger scheme of things, actually did directly stop heaps of people from dying.

No, u could take the tackle out of the game, take the bump out of the game and u will stop a significant amount of injury... but is that the game anyone would want...

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

Actions now are to prevent future law suits,

BUT,

What if the afl are actually doing the right thing for the right reasons too.

These law suits exist for a reason. Multiple concussions and CTE sound horrific.

Don’t we owe it to the players to attempt to prevent it?

But you're missing the point.

The point is, I repeat:

Are the AFL's actions really actually going to protect them against law suits? And if so, how?

I just don't see it.

I mean, the Job Ralph's of the world keep telling us this, but i fail to see how it is actually going to help.

 

[_Mike_]

the decision tree and processes DIRECTORS who face criminal negligence is as follows:

1) identify the risk (ie sling tackle)
2) risk of injury (brain damage - severe)
3) probability (low on one occasion but high if multiple events)
4) identify control to mitigate risk
5) measure residual probability
6) refer risk matrix (outcome is still high as death or serious injury is possible)
7) implement controls
8) monitor controls for compliance and breaches

fail any steps above is likely to result in criminal charges

the civil risk still remains regardless but at least insurance will cover civil issues but one can't insure against criminal

Corporate veil will protect any AFL directors in this case, the AFL is a separate legal identity and it would be a very difficult case to establish that the AFL board of directors acted outside of their scope. However like I wrote in the Scicily thread, which describes the elements of negligence, the above sums up from a corporate responsibility.

 

[_Mike_]

But you're missing the point.

The point is, I repeat:

Are the AFL's actions really actually going to protect them against law suits? And if so, how?

I just don't see it.

Below explains the elements of negligence, and IMO, how the AFL may seek to limit liability on their part

I see it as the AFL limiting their culpability via establishing and meeting the duty of care component required to sue for negligence. From a legal perspective, and a very high level summary, to sue for negligence there must be

• a likely outcome of damage/harm being suffered due to an action of the game?
• whether a duty of care should be imposed ?
• what was the standard of care and was that standard met? i.e. what mechanisms were put in place to reduce the chance of harm occurring
• but for the actions of the one that caused the harm, would the respondent have suffered the harm?
• is the harm/damage suffered compensable under law?

Without turning this thread into a legal lesson, I see the AFL seeking to rely on establishing that it met the standard by implementing mechanics to minimise the likely chance, by penalising players who's careless tackles result in concussion. It's not a fool-proof position however with the recognised risk of harm that one can be subject to in playing the game we love although coupled with the measures of punitive punishment for players who are careless with their tackles the AFL sees it as a tick in the box for them.

 

[kreglze]

That's the line we keep hearing... but explain to me how suspending people for already illegal acts, prevent CTE?

I suppose the AFL would argue they are trying to change behaviors' of the players by coming down very hard on tackles that result in heads hitting the deck, thus leading to less big concussions. Now will that happen? I have my doubts, but I can see why the AFL are doing what they are doing.

 

[Kappa]

Footy soon >

Those actually concuss you like a mother ****er. Your head snaps back like a car crash when u get hit.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

Below explains the elements of negligence, and IMO, how the AFL may seek to limit liability on their part

So that's fine.

But .. the class actions talk about the players being forced back onto the field after they were concussed, and duty of care to look after them after they were already already concussed. That sort of stuff.

I haven't seen anything that tackles (pardon the pun) the bigger issue of dangerous sports. If Boxing, MMA, etc. haven't been taken on for that - I don't reckon the AFL have much to worry about.

But even so, unlike the NFL, most of the dangerous AFL stuff has always been illegal anyway. It's not like it was ever negligent for head high bumps and tackles.

Granted they've tightened that in recent times, but will making it illegal (ie. against the rule punishable by a Free Kick) not be enough? Will suspending people for 3 weeks really make the courts say 'Ok, you're all good AFL'?

I mean, haven't there already been about 6 guys cop weeks for bumps? It's been banned for a decade, and it still happens.


But anyway, how can suspending guys for tackles and bumps, protect against law suits from guys getting knocked out in marking contests?


I can't fathom that more guys get CTE from tackles, than they do from marking contests?


I still don't see how this stuff will actually protect them from lawsuits.