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

[Demonic Ascent]

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

Yes criminal law applies in the AFL. That's why Barry Hall was charged with assault for decking Brent Stacker and why all the directors will be hung drawn and quartered because someone accidentally bumped their head on the ground while being tackled

 

[My Tilly]

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.

Exactly. I can't see how those who dabbled in unhealthy habits life after football can get full compo.
We have the vision of all hits to the head, does it cover class action?
As many a time, players copped the head knock and played on. There's simply no way of proving concussion let alone pin pointing current degeneration to those playing days.

 

[Power Raid]

Yes criminal law applies in the AFL. That's why Barry Hall was charged with assault for decking Brent Stacker and why all the directors will be hung drawn and quartered because someone accidentally bumped their head on the ground while being tackled

Has and will are too different things

But what is certain is the bar today is lower than the 1970s and that bar will decrease over time. Thus bringing gross negligence closer and closer.

Further you can try and dismiss brain damage as “bumping one’s head” but it does exceed the hurdle of serious injury.

Do you not feel directors at the AFL are acting in line with the changes of law?

Would you feel uncomfortable as a director where an unreasonable civil claim was demanded, thus insurance companies refuse to settle but the claimant leverages criminal charges knowing full well insurance and the AFL can’t pay your legal costs?

 

[WillHayward]

from a civil perspective, insurance will cover the costs and no doubt premiums rise. With that the game will continue to evolve to a point we don't recognise it.

where it gets ugly for directors, is insurance companies will drag out cases and force directors to deny responsibility. This is where is criminal prosecution gets colourful.

One can't threaten "pay me out" or I will go criminal but there are many ways are reminding people of the option for recourse. This can force directors / encourage directors to settle. However the insurance company don't care if directors go to jail as long as the ultimate pay out is delayed.

My punt is we will see criminal prosecution in due course (within 20 years)

Insurance premiums will rise and the AFL will have a future fund for concussion.

It will be paid for by ever increasing gambling ads.

It's an absolute joke.

But that's how it's going to play out.

And the Execs will keep rewarding themselves with pay rises for coming up with such a plan.

The game is now entirely dependent on gambling revenue.

This is what they call "progress".

Unfortunately the culture of the game has now been hijacked by spivs like "Hutchie".

 

[Demonic Ascent]

Further you can try and dismiss brain damage as “bumping one’s head” but it does exceed the hurdle of serious injury.

Does it? That is your assumption, each injury would have to be assessed on its merits taking into account apportionment of pre-existing or unrelated factors, severity of symptoms and application of the impairment guides.

 

[lockheed]

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'm not a lawyer, but for me, the issue will depend on the AFL's actions were, at any point in time, compared to the scientific knowledge of concussion at that time. If and whenever the AFL's education and concussion protocols lagged behind the then scientific knowledge, then the AFL are likely to be found culpable.

 

[melbun]

Scientists say: "I'll say whatever you like, if there is a dollar in it"

 

[Power Raid]

Does it? That is your assumption, each injury would have to be assessed on its merits taking into account apportionment of pre-existing or unrelated factors, severity of symptoms and application of the impairment guides.

agree

but imagine being a director and facing a barrage of criminal actions, where a number of players step forward like a "me too movement". Guilty or not, one will have to defend themselves in court (please refer to Ben Robert Smith's $20M legal fee), to prospect of going to jail and not seeing your kids grow up and being in the papers ruining your reputation and your family's lives.

I sense this is the gap between us. There are no doubt there are hurdles for a successful prosecution of a criminal case. However the risk is not the outcome but just being caught in a criminal process is a risk in itself.

A mate who runs Australia's largest fuel distribution business had an accident in the workpplace, where a guy slipped off a truck whilst unloading and fell through a guard rail on a jetty. He was unloading in an unauthorised manner, in an area that contravened the company's procedures and the jetty's rails that failed were government owned. Despite this, worksafe's stating point was a fine on the provision of admission of guilt or face a court process.

A sensible board will invest heavily in safety, as they should but the driver is not just avoiding a safety incident but also ruining 5 years of one's life defending the threat of criminal and civil penalties.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

Has and will are too different things

But what is certain is the bar today is lower than the 1970s and that bar will decrease over time. Thus bringing gross negligence closer and closer.

Further you can try and dismiss brain damage as “bumping one’s head” but it does exceed the hurdle of serious injury.

Do you not feel directors at the AFL are acting in line with the changes of law?

Would you feel uncomfortable as a director where an unreasonable civil claim was demanded, thus insurance companies refuse to settle but the claimant leverages criminal charges knowing full well insurance and the AFL can’t pay your legal costs?

But this is surely where disclaimers will come in to it at some point?

Like bungee jumping. It's ****ing dangerous man. I mean, the operator has to do their due diligence on equipment and shit, but there is a chance you'll die.

And if you choose to do it anyway, it's on you.

At some point, the AFL either has to make new players sign a disclaimer, or they need to completely ban all contact.

 

[mr bagcroft]

Insurance premiums will rise and the AFL will have a future fund for concussion.

It will be paid for by ever increasing gambling ads.

It's an absolute joke.

But that's how it's going to play out.

And the Execs will keep rewarding themselves with pay rises for coming up with such a plan.

The game is now entirely dependent on gambling revenue.

This is what they call "progress".

Unfortunately the culture of the game has now been hijacked by spivs like "Hutchie".

Interesting note:
The AFL is the only game in the world where the Exec's get paid more than the players.

 

[WillHayward]

Interesting note:
The AFL is the only game in the world where the Exec's get paid more than the players.

Which is crazy when U think about it.

They didn't invent the game.
They didn't make it popular and bring in the crowds
They didn't bring in the sponsors.
They didn't build stadiums

Everything has been in place for decades

They are mere custodians and administrators of the game.

Yet they pay themselves like entrepreneurs and business owners and like they are the top of a corporate franchise model by keeping the clubs as beggars

It's a disgrace.

 

[Glorfindel]

But this is surely where disclaimers will come in to it at some point?

Waivers (presume that's what you meant) seem to be a bit of a grey area, and you have to be very thorough in explaining ALL the potential risks (both likelihood and consequence of each risk) for them to really protect you.
I don't know if anyone here has gone under the knife for an elective surgery recently, but the list of possible side/adverse effects that surgeons make you sign off against is pretty exhaustive. Even moreso if you need to have a general as the anaesthetic death rate is ~1/100,000.
Conversely I'm not sure how many chiros are telling their patient's theres a risk (albeit very slim) of them having a stroke as a direct result of a cervical manipulation.

 

[Del165198]

Interesting note:
The AFL is the only game in the world where the Exec's get paid more than the players.

UFC? Lol
The owners and execs are multi multi millionaires and most of the fighters are getting 30k a bout

 

[4tone]

It will be interesting see what happens if Gus Bradshaw is slung tackled and his helmeted head hits the turf. Most players have got up and continued playing regardless of their heads hitting the ground. Wearing a helmet surely exempt potential to hurt. The tackler gets off as the potential to hurt is eliminated. That said I predict all players within 10 years will wear helmets. That’s where the AFL is going with this.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

Waivers (presume that's what you meant) seem to be a bit of a grey area, and you have to be very thorough in explaining ALL the potential risks (both likelihood and consequence of each risk) for them to really protect you.
I don't know if anyone here has gone under the knife for an elective surgery recently, but the list of possible side/adverse effects that surgeons make you sign off against is pretty exhaustive. Even moreso if you need to have a general as the anaesthetic death rate is ~1/100,000.
Conversely I'm not sure how many chiros are telling their patient's theres a risk (albeit very slim) of them having a stroke as a direct result of a cervical manipulation.

Yeah, but if the AFL are serious about saving the game, then spending some time to write up watertight legal waivers surely isn't a big deal.

Fundamentally, if you get hurt playing footy, you're in your own.

Or, more likely, you'll get medical support up to a certain amount, but then you're on your own. And you can't sue anyone.


We keep hearing the narrative that "we must ban everything otherwise the game will be dead cause everyone will be sued".

The current way out of this is to reduce as much impact as possible. In the views of many, that is to the detriment of the game

Now if the AFL is not doing this to save the game financially, and instead is doing it to make the game safe - then they're failing horribly because they're are still dozens of ways you can get head injuries, and it's happening every week.


It just feels neither here not there from the AFL.


Unless of course, this is actually all about the game's image. And has nothing to do with actually making the game safe and/or protecting the AFL from legal action.

 

[Power Raid]

But this is surely where disclaimers will come in to it at some point?

Like bungee jumping. It's ******* dangerous man. I mean, the operator has to do their due diligence on equipment and s**t, but there is a chance you'll die.

And if you choose to do it anyway, it's on you.

At some point, the AFL either has to make new players sign a disclaimer, or they need to completely ban all contact.

One can’t sign away criminal rights

Imagine telling workers, sign here mate, if you want work we aren’t criminally liable for your death or serious injury

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

One can’t sign away criminal rights

Imagine telling workers, sign here mate, if you want work we aren’t criminally liable for your death or serious injury

It's a good point. And really, the issue there is really that the AFL exec drink so heavily from the trough.

I never see players as 'workers'. But I suppose if the AFL exec are taking in millions annually personally from the efforts of the players - they kind of are just working for the AFL exec, aren't they?

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

How many weeks will Gary Rohan

23

Gary Rohan

Age

33

Ht

189cm

Wt

92kg

Pos.

Fwd

Career

Season

Last 5

D

9.6

2star

K

6.6

3star

HB

3.0

3star

M

3.3

3star

T

2.5

4star

G

1.0

4star

D

8.8

2star

K

6.0

2star

HB

2.8

2star

M

3.4

3star

T

2.3

3star

G

1.0

4star

D

9.8

3star

K

6.8

3star

HB

3.0

3star

M

2.2

3star

T

4.2

5star

G

1.2

4star

get for knocking Cameron out?

 

[PenAndPaper]

How many weeks will Gary Rohan get for knocking Cameron out?

Had more time to pull out of the contest than Mansell and also had the option of stopping to receive a handball or tackle if Lever got the ball. Has to be a minimum of 3 weeks.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

Had more time to pull out of the contest than Mansell and also had the option of stopping to receive a handball or tackle if Lever got the ball. Has to be a minimum of 3 weeks.

In all seriousness, he must get weeks.

It's illogical if he doesn't.

 

[PenAndPaper]

In all seriousness, he must get weeks.

It's illogical if he doesn't.

I'm being 100% serious. The AFL have brought this upon themselves with their own wording so he has to be punished for this...unless they don't actually care about head injuries

 

[Engimal v3]

How many weeks will Gary Rohan get for knocking Cameron out?

Don't know if you're joking, but it's a fair question. The AFL has already made it clear that it's not about intention, with carelessness being a valid reason for a suspension.

So why should the victim being on the same team have any impact on the penalty? A concussion caused by carelessness is a concussion nonetheless.

 

[MiguelM]

Don't know if you're joking, but it's a fair question. The AFL has already made it clear that it's not about intention, with carelessness being a valid reason for a suspension.

So why should the victim being on the same team have any impact on the penalty? A concussion caused by carelessness is a concussion nonetheless.

Lots of commentary about exactly this. It is hypocritical.

The AFL have made no secret of the fact accidental contact will be punished based on injury outcomes (concussion top of the list).

How long before the Rohan footage is shown as evidence when a player is facing suspension for accidental outcomes?

 

[Toump Ass]

Thing I wanna know is what the f was King Rohan actually trying to do?

He missed Lever by a mile.

 

[Argy]

Lots of commentary about exactly this. It is hypocritical.

The AFL have made no secret of the fact accidental contact will be punished based on injury outcomes (concussion top of the list).

How long before the Rohan footage is shown as evidence when a player is facing suspension for accidental outcomes?

The rules seem to be written around contact with an opposition player, not a team mate. However, he could possibly be reported under rule 22.2.2(ix); "Making unreasonable or unnecessary contact to the face of another person". Which he did in a very forceful way.

It seems to be one of the few "contact" rules which mentions "person" rather than "opposition player".