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

[The Hobo]

Might be a stupid question - but how do sports like boxing, MMA etc. operate without issue or risk of class actions compared to the AFL? Surely the players sign some sort of waiver when they play?

Don't get me wrong, it's a good thing the AFL is doing everything in it's power to protect it's players - just curious more than anything.

 

[Mitchell Madness]

Might be a stupid question - but how do sports like boxing, MMA etc. operate without issue or risk of class actions compared to the AFL? Surely the players sign some sort of waiver when they play?

Don't get me wrong, it's a good thing the AFL is doing everything in it's power to protect it's players - just curious more than anything.

Independent contractors who sign a waiver, not employed by the organisation on a wage

 

[Roby]

I posted this in the Mansell thread.

I think what some people don't understand is that if you go back 50 years, the game was much slower, players did not move around the ground, they would stay in their position. Now you see players running 15 kms in a game.

Before you would have players coming off the ball, lining players up, it was completely different and it was not a football action. Those were suspendedable for good reason.

Players now move much faster to contest the ball. The split second reaction required to manoeuvre out of a collision (and I can vouch for this for someone who studies biology) is highly unreasonable to expect players to make quick decisions when the brain cannot process quickly enough how to avoid these collisions, let alone make sure all your limbs don't appear to be showing malice.

Many people that make these comments about how these actions should be suspended, don't understand how quickly a player needs to react. They are basing their judgement incorrectly, and I emphasize INCORRECTLY, on slow motion footage which has been slowed down 10-12 times. They're doing this from the comfort of their seat or couch. They completely MISREPRESENT what a player is required to do in order to avoid contact or brace for contact. I bet most, if not all, of the people like Whateley wanting Mansell suspended have the ability too run at this speed, let alone have the reaction times of these footballers. Yet they feel they can CLEARLY arbitrate on slow motion replay what on players should be doing.

Do you honestly think Mansell thought half a second prior to impact, why not, let me hit Aish and hopefully I'll go take a holiday for three weeks.

 

[Power Raid]

Ok mate you hang your hat on that, it's laughable that you actually believe AFL directors will be criminally prosecuted for negligence. There are no grounds at all for this to happen despite your fetished desire for it to occur.

Please quote the exemption, for the AFL or any sport, in the legislation

Or are you just feeling the vibe?

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

Might be a stupid question - but how do sports like boxing, MMA etc. operate without issue or risk of class actions compared to the AFL? Surely the players sign some sort of waiver when they play?

Don't get me wrong, it's a good thing the AFL is doing everything in it's power to protect it's players - just curious more than anything.

It used to be a mandatory 3 month ban from any competition or training if you were TKO'd or KO'd. No arguments. No wriggle room.

Then there were rules around their recovery.

Not sure if that was the Nevada Commission or the UFC that mandated that.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

Please quote the exemption, for the AFL or any sport, in the legislation

Or are you just feeling the vibe?

Your talking about the workplace manslaughter laws? Or oh&s laws encompassing criminal negligence?

Neither of those will see AFL directors go to prison because footy players are getting concussed.

 

[Pipefitter]

I would have thought class actions would have been based around the poor historical protocols on concussion ie sending players back on the field with concussion, no mandatory match time breaks after being concussed, not being tackled.

We are already seeing players trying to exploit the rules and draw free kicks with this rule. It’s just going to cause more issues. The players look absolutely confused and frustrated with this years tackling focus and these are the very people the AFL are trying to protect?

 

[Apsaalooke]

I would have thought class actions would have been based around the poor historical protocols on concussion ie sending players back on the field with concussion, no mandatory match time breaks after being concussed, not being tackled.

We are already seeing players trying to exploit the rules and draw free kicks with this rule. It’s just going to cause more issues. The players look absolutely confused and frustrated with this years tackling focus and these are the very people the AFL are trying to protect?

I heard a player radio interview recently, can’t recall who unfortunately, who said all the players are confused by the tackling interpretations. He was then asked what was his understanding and he basically said that they were trying to instil a duty of care from the tackler to prevent the head being driven into the ground. Despite his “ confusion” he got it right first time as it’s not that difficult a concept.

If your instincts tell you to pin the arms and drive the head down then change your instincts because it causes brain damage. No confusion there.

If the AFL is asked what measures did they take to prevent concussion, what answer is more defensible in court - Nothing, we let the players decide, or we put rules in place to discourage dangerous tackles?

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

I heard a player radio interview recently, can’t recall who unfortunately, who said all the players are confused by the tackling interpretations. He was then asked what was his understanding and he basically said that they were trying to instil a duty of care from the tackler to prevent the head being driven into the ground. Despite his “ confusion” he got it right first time as it’s not that difficult a concept.

If your instincts tell you to pin the arms and drive the head down then change your instincts because it causes brain damage. No confusion there.

If the AFL is asked what measures did they take to prevent concussion, what answer is more defensible in court - Nothing, we let the players decide, or we put rules in place to discourage dangerous tackles?

So a forward or defender sues the AFL from repeated concussions caused by being crunched constantly by knees and forearms, legally, in marking contests.

He shows the court contest after contest after contest where guys get crunched from behind whilst they defenselessly stand under the ball. He shows the court footage of Damian Hardwick lauding Tom Lynch for smashing guys that stand in front of a pack. He even shows them footage of Lynch cannoning his forearms into the back of Ben Paton's head, sending him off for 12 stitches. No free kick was even paid.

And the AFL's response is 'umm, we started suspending guy for pinning both arms and driving their head into the ground'.

Is that going to stand up??

 

[Power Raid]

Your talking about the workplace manslaughter laws? Or oh&s laws encompassing criminal negligence?

Neither of those will see AFL directors go to prison because footy players are getting concussed.

You’re right concussion would not be classed as “death or serious injury” but do you feel brain damage as experienced by many past footballers be classed as serious injury?

 

[Apsaalooke]

So a forward or defender sues the AFL from repeated concussions caused by being crunched constantly by knees and forearms, legally, in marking contests.

He shows the court contest after contest after contest where guys get crunched from behind whilst they defenselessly stand under the ball. He shows the court footage of Damian Hardwick lauding Tom Lynch for smashing guys that stand in front of a pack. He even shows them footage of Lynch cannoning his forearms into the back of Ben Paton's head, sending him off for 12 stitches. No free kick was even paid.

And the AFL's response is 'umm, we started suspending guy for pinning both arms and driving their head into the ground'.

Is that going to stand up??

No but they’re entirely different scenarios with totally different arguments.

Should we allow dangerous tackles to continue because some guys are being hit during marking contests?

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

No but they’re entirely different scenarios with totally different arguments.

Should we allow dangerous tackles to continue because some guys are being hit during marking contests?

If there's any logic to suspending guys for dangerous tackles, then surely that same logic must apply to marking contests?

It's the most dangerous part of the game by a long way.

If it's about making the game safer, then the marking contest must be made safe.

The thing is also, that there are other ways to reduce the likelihood of dangerous tackles. You can start pinging guys for HTB far quicker. No prior - if you get caught, you're done..this would instantly stop players from attempting to keep the ball in. And, it would force players to bang it on their boot immediately.

That would reduce dangerous tackles almost instantly.

I feel that suspending players is by far the least creative, and seems like the least effective also. You're still leaving the door ajar for concussions from tackles. I mean, the contest remains the same, and you're telling players that they can still dump a guy's head into the turf - as long as you leave one arm free!!?? I mean, that's absurd.

You're also encouraging guys to stage and drive their own head into the ground. We're seeing this each game already.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

You’re right concussion would not be classed as “death or serious injury” but do you feel brain damage as experienced by many past footballers be classed as serious injury?

Maybe - if the injury could be attributed to it. Not sure what the relavent specific tests are but under workers comp in Victoria a serious injury is 30% whole person impairment under the AMA guides. And that is without considering apportionment which would have to be taken into account (for example how many ex-footballers, like Ablett senior for example, have had drug habits or long term alcohol use?) And only then, assuming they pass that threshold test, you have to start looking at whether there was any negligence of the AFL directors and if so, how much and whether they could be held criminally negligent.

These sorts of laws were brought in for dodgy employers who don't adhere to the proper h&s laws on building sites, factories etc, such as the one where the wall collapsed on Swanston Street near Queensberry st a few years ago. It is relatively easy enough to show employers in those instances were criminally negligent by not following the correct h&s protocols that has subsequently resulted in a serious injury or death. For example did the machine being used have the appropriate safety mechanisms installed? Did the brick wall have sufficient supports around it? Etc

Trying to attribute criminal negligence to AFL directors who are governing a sport, a sport where head high hits are outlawed mind you but where accidents can occur in a full contact, 360 degree sport and people can get injured (including but not limited to head injuries) is extremely, extremely far fetched.

And if it were, why would it be limited to head injuries? What about the ex-players that struggle to roll out of bed in the morning due to multiple knee, hip, ankle, back, shoulder etc etc surgeries through their careers? Players that were shot up with multiple painkillers to play through injuries that meant they suffered early onset osteoarthritis after their playing careers? Their injuries may be significant enough to meet a serious injury threshold, will we start seeing class actions from those ex-players against the league?

 

[SplintWhisky]

AFL players all need to acknowledge that they play a contact sport and that issues are going to arise.

What can't happen though in the game is that current medical knowledge is being ignored RE concussion and players are rushed back into the game. That has to be the issue.

As a player, if the doctors, and club were not negligent and followed concussion after care protocol then there should be be no way they are due anything. If the player doesn't like that outcome then don't play AFL.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

From an article in The Age today..

"The AFL was contacted for comment on Friday. The league has repeatedly pointed to the 30 match review and tribunal changes it has made over the past decade in a bid to mitigate head knocks."

So they clearly do believe, presumably on expensive legal advice, that suspending players is what will get them off the hook in terms of demonstrating due care

As I've said though, and not that it matters what I think - I just don't see how this makes any difference.

 

[Rotayjay]

It appears the AFL wants to be seen doing anything it can to meet a higher standard of care towards the players. The league is responsible for punishing onfield behaviour and deciding what is deserving of punishment. At the moment that means penalising acts that can result in a head knock, thereby countering the argument that the AFL is breaching its duty of care by leaving the risk of head knocks unchecked.

It may not beat the class actions resulting from head impacts in previous seasons, but it may control the legal and financial damage. The league may argue that it was not aware of how serious concussion can be when medical knowledge was more primitive, and as soon as it realised the seriousness it acted straight away to stamp out concussion-causing behaviour. So overall it's a big arse-covering exercise because we now know how dangerous any impact to the head is.

 

[Power Raid]

Maybe - if the injury could be attributed to it. Not sure what the relavent specific tests are but under workers comp in Victoria a serious injury is 30% whole person impairment under the AMA guides. And that is without considering apportionment which would have to be taken into account (for example how many ex-footballers, like Ablett senior for example, have had drug habits or long term alcohol use?) And only then, assuming they pass that threshold test, you have to start looking at whether there was any negligence of the AFL directors and if so, how much and whether they could be held criminally negligent.

These sorts of laws were brought in for dodgy employers who don't adhere to the proper h&s laws on building sites, factories etc, such as the one where the wall collapsed on Swanston Street near Queensberry st a few years ago. It is relatively easy enough to show employers in those instances were criminally negligent by not following the correct h&s protocols that has subsequently resulted in a serious injury or death. For example did the machine being used have the appropriate safety mechanisms installed? Did the brick wall have sufficient supports around it? Etc

Trying to attribute criminal negligence to AFL directors who are governing a sport, a sport where head high hits are outlawed mind you but where accidents can occur in a full contact, 360 degree sport and people can get injured (including but not limited to head injuries) is extremely, extremely far fetched.

And if it were, why would it be limited to head injuries? What about the ex-players that struggle to roll out of bed in the morning due to multiple knee, hip, ankle, back, shoulder etc etc surgeries through their careers? Players that were shot up with multiple painkillers to play through injuries that meant they suffered early onset osteoarthritis after their playing careers? Their injuries may be significant enough to meet a serious injury threshold, will we start seeing class actions from those ex-players against the league?

Most would appreciate the rule changes aren't actually about concussion but rather concussion is just a symptom that brain damage is occurring. Like your examples of struggling to roll out of bed, concussion by itself does not meet the threshold of serious injury.

Further your reference to "head high contact" is outlawed, is only a fraction of the story that a director must demonstrate to avoid criminal prosecution. The rule is the or one of "controls" implemented to reduce the risk but then one must ask is the control effective and measure the residual risk. Further the director must monitor compliance of the control and if frees are given away or suspensions issued, this suggests the control is not being complied with.

Your reference to "other industries", well the legislation does not discriminate by workplace. It is one in, all in.

 

[melbun]

The days of helmets, Kevlar and chain mail are rapidly approaching.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

So overall it's a big arse-covering exercise because we now know how dangerous any impact to the head is.

That's the premise the thread... however I'm questioning how exactly, it covers their arse.

An analogy...it's like a government increasing the speed limit to 100km/h in school zones - but giving anyone who kills someone whilst over the speed limit 50 years in jail.

The AFL's rule changes to speed up the game are the reason the game is more dangerous than ever.

Surely suspending guys isn't going to get the AFL off the hook? It just seems so illogical to me.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

Most would appreciate the rule changes aren't actually about concussion but rather concussion is just a symptom that brain damage is occurring. Like your examples of struggling to roll out of bed, concussion by itself does not meet the threshold of serious injury.

Further your reference to "head high contact" is outlawed, is only a fraction of the story that a director must demonstrate to avoid criminal prosecution. The rule is the or one of "controls" implemented to reduce the risk but then one must ask is the control effective and measure the residual risk. Further the director must monitor compliance of the control and if frees are given away or suspensions issued, this suggests the control is not being complied with.

Your reference to "other industries", well the legislation does not discriminate by workplace. It is one in, all in.

There's already understanding that a football field is not a normal workplace. It's why football players (sporting contestants) are not eligible for workers compensation in Victoria.

There is no way to completely eliminate instances of injury including concussion. Again, your belief that AFL directors will be prosecuted under criminal negligence laws and face jailtime is extremely fanciful, to put it nicely.

 

[melbun]

belief that AFL directors will be prosecuted under criminal negligence laws and face jailtime is extremely fanciful

Please! Permit us to have pleasant dreams.

 

[caloschwaby]

Suspending guys while it continues to happen week in and week out, mostly incidentally and without any ability for the offending player to make it much more safer while still carrying out his objective as a player.

 

[Glorfindel]

Their injuries may be significant enough to meet a serious injury threshold, will we start seeing class actions from those ex-players against the league?

There's already been a handful of players attempting to seek compensation eg Ty Zantuck for his back.

 

[Power Raid]

There's already understanding that a football field is not a not al workplace. It's why football players (sporting contestants) are not eligible for workers compensation in Victoria.

There is no way to completely eliminate instances of injury including concussion. Again, your belief that AFL directors will be prosecuted under criminal negligence laws and face jailtime is extremely fanciful, to put it nicely.

Where do you get this bizarre idea criminal law exempts work places such as sport?

There is already legal precedence in the UK

It is only a function of time before we have a landmark ruling in Oz

 

[Apsaalooke]

The number of suspensions will reduce in time, and will be much less next year. Some of the players are sick of being fined or suspended, and recognising there is a duty of care and already tackling in a safer manner. Others are either a bit slower on the uptake or listening to lunkhead coaches who tell them to keep doing what they're doing. The policy won't change so players have no choice but to change.

We also forget that AFL rulings do filter down to state, amateur, country and school leagues, both for men and women. There are less than a thousand AFL listed players but many thousands in those leagues with probably hundreds each week getting concussed or suffering subclinical blows to the head which cause cumulative brain damage with no hope of compensation later in life. Reducing head injury in this much larger group is the bigger picture here.