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

[Back One Out]

It's a tough question...

Let's ask hard-hitting, news-breaking, investigative extraordinaire, Damian Barrett

If he can't apply the blowtorch, then who else can?

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

Damo: [removes his tongue from Gill McLachlan's arse] "It's a no-win situation for the AFL, damned if they do, damned if they don't. I think we all need to take a deep breath and realise what a difficult thankless task they have to do and how they've been navigating their way through this minefield to ensure a fair outcome for all. But I am 100% confident they won't be affected by the current media hysteria and they will do what is best for the game."

Gill: Here, Damo. Here's the 2 tickets to Michael Bublé and that 500 bucks I promised you. Cheers.



(This may or may not be factually correct.)

 

[melbun]

a bog in the winter months

Ahh. When players also required swimming skills.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

It isn't about beating them it's mitigating the end result. The AFL have to be seen to be doing something to stop this occurring now and into the future. Look we may hate these suspensions but last week was a perfect example most players did the right thing, only a couple were suspended so players are getting it right.

It isn't 1990 everyone, everyone is aware of the long term effects of concussions now, with many ex players never being the same post footy. Lets not let the next bunch of players suffer the same long term issues.

 

[shintemaster]

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.

Remember the AFL and their legal advisors can be attempting to mitigate future legal actions (ie. generated out of their actions today and in recent / future times) separately to their response to "historical" events current class actions are talking about.

ie. Current actions may allege that the AFL should reasonably have know and taken greater care not to send players back on to the field, whereas future actions might argue that the AFL concussion protocols or mandatory periods out following an event were not adequate or reasonable against current evidence. Boxing and MMA, no idea but I would suggest the majority of these relatively speaking are international events - am aware they host in Australia as well - and ultimately sit under completely different legal and OH&S frameworks.

 

[melbun]

What I do not understand is: that in the 1980s and 90s, the VFL/AFL would be judged by the laws of the land at that time. How is it that they now face legal action in light of new knowledge and new workplace laws?
I don't get it.

 

[EB&W Pieman]

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

Yep. Of course that “cold” killed more than two million people …….. and counting.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

ie. Current actions may allege that the AFL should reasonably have know and taken greater care not to send players back on to the field, whereas future actions might argue that the AFL concussion protocols or mandatory periods out following an event were not adequate or reasonable against current evidence.

For sure. I've argued on here for years that the AFL has been asleep at the wheel when it comes to their handling of concussions.

Being an avid MMA fan, where guys cop mandatory 12 week bans for being concussed or knocked out, seeing AFL players suffer clear head trauma, only to push the trainers away and play the game out - was very concerning to me.

I failed to comprehend why they were banning the bump and altering the fabric of the game - but not actually doing anywhere near enough to treat or respond to the head trauma.

 

[Corn Cobbers]

We need Gil to stay on a bit longer to sort this out. The game won't cope without Gil until all outstanding issues are resolved. I can't recall how we survived pre-Gil, it's a miracle.

 

[melbun]

At the premier level there is reasonable argument in requiring every player to wear Angus Brayshaw

10

Angus Brayshaw

Age

28

Ht

188cm

Wt

90kg

Pos.

D/M

Career

Season

Last 5

D

19.7

5star

K

11.1

4star

HB

8.6

5star

M

3.7

4star

T

4.3

5star

MG

233.5

4star

D

15.5

4star

K

7.7

3star

HB

7.8

4star

M

2.0

2star

T

3.2

4star

MG

233.5

4star

D

11.4

3star

K

8.2

4star

HB

3.2

3star

M

3.4

4star

T

5.6

5star

type helmets.
If you are serious about head injury, enforce the helmets.

 

[Milanista28]

At the premier level there is reasonable argument in requiring every player to wear Angus Brayshaw type helmets.
If you are serious about head injury, enforce the helmets.

I've heard people say they don't help at all.

 

[Yianni]

To understand this point, imagine of the opposite of what they're doing now. Imagine if they started rewarding head high tackles. Not just allowing them to happen, but paying players a $5,000 bonus every time they knocked someone's block off.

Okay, player gets injured and takes the AFL to court for their medical bills and decrease in quality of life. The AFL says "It's a tough game, get over it", the court says 'Well what about those $5,000 Subzero Fatality bounties?" And the AFL is in trouble.

Because once you realise there is a harm, it is within your duty of care to MITIGATE that harm. And mitigation doesn't mean you have to eliminate it. But you do need to do what you can.

Well what can the AFL do? They can't control what happens on the field directly, but they can influence it indirectly through the MRO and Tribunal. So that's what they're doing.

People saying anything that starts with "I can't imagine that..." or "Surely it isn't the case that...", I can assure you that your deficit of imagination doesn't change reality. I can also assure you that the AFL isn't hobbling the tackle because they hate the tackle, it will be based off research, medical and legal.

 

[Yianni]

At the premier level there is reasonable argument in requiring every player to wear Angus Brayshaw type helmets.
If you are serious about head injury, enforce the helmets.

But then how will everyone mock NFL players for being soft?

 

[Yianni]

I've heard people say they don't help at all.

Yeah, but do they help at all?

I've heard people say that huffing your own farts gives you immunity from extradition.

 

[Milanista28]

Yeah, but do they help at all?

I've heard people say that huffing your own farts gives you immunity from extradition.

I've heard experts say they don't help at all.

 

[Yianni]

I've heard experts say they don't help at all.

Which experts? What are they experts in?

And are they saying that they don't help with concussion, or with cuts opening up?

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

To understand this point, imagine of the opposite of what they're doing now. Imagine if they started rewarding head high tackles. Not just allowing them to happen, but paying players a $5,000 bonus every time they knocked someone's block off.

Okay, player gets injured and takes the AFL to court for their medical bills and decrease in quality of life. The AFL says "It's a tough game, get over it", the court says 'Well what about those $5,000 Subzero Fatality bounties?" And the AFL is in trouble.

Because once you realise there is a harm, it is within your duty of care to MITIGATE that harm. And mitigation doesn't mean you have to eliminate it. But you do need to do what you can.

Well what can the AFL do? They can't control what happens on the field directly, but they can influence it indirectly through the MRO and Tribunal. So that's what they're doing.

People saying anything that starts with "I can't imagine that..." or "Surely it isn't the case that...", I can assure you that your deficit of imagination doesn't change reality. I can also assure you that the AFL isn't hobbling the tackle because they hate the tackle, it will be based off research, medical and legal.

So guys that get knocked out repeatedly in marking contests throughout their careers - do you think the AFL suspending guys for dangerous tackles will help them?

And more to the point, would they be less liable in the eyes of a court?

 

[melbun]

I've heard experts say they don't help at all.

Scientists say: "Your shout Ted."

 

[Milanista28]

Which experts? What are they experts in?

And are they saying that they don't help with concussion, or with cuts opening up?

Alright you got me, I made it up. I can't operate under this sort of pressure

 

[JackFlash]

This is a minefield, but each and every player knew that the game is a collision sport and the risks involved in participating in that sport. I have no idea how any of this will be adjudicated? How can today's MRO decisions or rule changes have any impact at all on the past? Boxers enter the ring knowing they will get hit at some point, even the best of them. What does the AFL do moving forward? Do we adopt "International Rules" and have standing tackles only?

 

[Yianni]

Alright you got me, I made it up. I can't operate under this sort of pressure

Don't worry. It happens to the best of us. Here's me getting caught out fabricating a backstory for Cyril Rioli in a discussion about Phoenix Spicer.

 

[Yianni]

So guys that get knocked out repeatedly in marking contests throughout their careers - do you think the AFL suspending guys for dangerous tackles will help them?

And more to the point, would they be less liable in the eyes of a court?

Just remember, that every bloke isn't going to sue them. Just the worst cases. But that's enough to potentially cost a LOT of money.

And what they're doing isn't trying to make concussion impossible. There is no perfect world. Negligence isn't saying "This was dangerous" It's saying "I knew this was dangerous, but your actions or inactions made it worse. In anticipating that, the AFL (no doubt advised by its lawyers) is putting things in place that they can point if/when they do end up in court and say 'We did what we could to minimise the risk to players of concussion.'

Does it make more sense that way?

 

[master bate]

What I do not understand is: that in the 1980s and 90s, the VFL/AFL would be judged by the laws of the land at that time. How is it that they now face legal action in light of new knowledge and new workplace laws?
I don't get it.

We already know the AFL’s concussion expert was a bit shady. The AFL don’t want every single decision they did and didn’t make public, nor do they want a mountain of evidence of former players with issues fronting to court day after day.

Like a lot of law suits, the aim will be to settle. The league will attempt to take a financial hit and provide ongoing care to ex players rather than potentially be on the hook for huge penalties if they really lost a lawsuit,


The AFL will probably have to have post football concussion care funded for decades. The rule changes are about minimising that cost, possibly by placating any insurers.

 

[Jim Prideaux]

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.

The sling tackle is purely a cosmetic thing. It’s the AFL window dressing, and saying ‘look, we are serious about mitigating risk’.

On the class action thing, a lot will depend on 3 things;

1. When did the AFL find out that concussions could lead to serious longer term health issues (don’t reference the NFL here, it’s not necessarily relevant).

2. Once the became aware, did they warn the clubs/players.

3. Once they became aware, did they take adequate steps to reduce the risk of these concussions happening. That doesn’t necessarily mean removing them altogether, but did they attempt to reduce them.

The sling tackle rule is a very clumsy look at us response to the 3rd point.

 

[Jim Prideaux]

What I do not understand is: that in the 1980s and 90s, the VFL/AFL would be judged by the laws of the land at that time. How is it that they now face legal action in light of new knowledge and new workplace laws?
I don't get it.

Are the workplace laws that new? The knowledge thing is tge big question

 

[melbun]

Are the workplace laws that new? The knowledge thing is tge big question

The industrial manslaughter bit is new. Gaol sentences for employers (e.g. Gil) who don't take enough care of their employees.